BV  600  .L85  1904   v.l 
Lowrie,  Walter,  1868-1959. 
The  church  and  its 
organization  in  primitive 


THE 

CHURCH   AND    ITS   ORGANIZATION 

IN 

PRIMITIVE   AND   CATHOLIC   TIMES 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ST.  JOHN:  An  Essay  in  Biblical  Theology. 
12mo.  Longmans,  Green,  &  Co.,  New  York,  London,  and  Bombay. 
1899. 

MONUMENTS  OF  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  (title  of  the  English 
edition,  CHRISTIAN  ART  AND  ARCHAEOLOGY).  In  the 
series  of  Handbooks  of  Archaeology  and  Antiquities.  Crown  8vo. 
The  Macmillan  Company,  New  York ;  Macmillan  &  Co. ,  London  and 
Bombay.     1901. 


THE   CHURCH        {."Z'^Z^^ 

AND    ITS     ORGANIZATION 

IN 

PRIMITIVE  AND  CATHOLIC   TIMES 

AN    INTERPRETATION 

OF   RUDOLPH   SOHM'S  KIRCHENRECHT 

/by 
WALTER   LOWRIE,  M.  A. 


THE    PRIMITIVE   AGE 


LONGMANS,   GREEN,   AND    CO. 

91  AND  93  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 

LONDON  AND  BOMBAY 

1904 


Copyright,  1904 
By  Walter  Lowrie 


THE   UNIVERSITY    PRESS,    CAMBRIDGE,    U.  S.  A. 


To 
MY  MOTHEK 

FKOM  WHOM  I  HAVE  LEARNED 

THE  BKOADEST  AND  DEEPEST  THINGS  ABOUT 

THE  CHURCH 

WHO   IN   MY   YOUTH    DEDICATED   ME 

TO   THE   MINISTRY 

AND    HAS   EVER   PROMPTED   IN   ME    THE    SPIRIT   OF 

SERVICE 


PEEFACE 

IN  turning  to  the  Preface  one  is  likely  to  seek  first  of 
all  an  answer  to  the  query,  What  is  the  significance 
of  entitling  this  book  an  "  Interpretation "  of  Sohm's 
Ecclesiastical  Laiu  f 

This  implies,  however,  a  preliminary  question :  What 
of  Sohm  himself,  and  what  of  his  work  ? 

Dr.  Rudolph  Sohm,  Professor  in  the  Juristic  Faculty 
of  the  University  of  Leipsic,  is  best  known  in  this 
country  as  a  writer  upon  Roman  law,  and  by  the  few 
students  among  us  who  follow  this  branch  of  study  he 
is  recognized  as  one  of  the  most  able  and  suggestive  of 
teachers.  His  work  on  the  Institutes  of  Roman  Laio 
has  been  translated  into  English  from  the  Fourth 
German  Edition,  —  first  ed.  Oxford,  1892,  second  ed. 
1901.  But  his  work  in  Church  history  is  not  alto- 
gether unknown,  for  a  brief,  popular  book  of  his, 
entitled  Kircliengeschiclite  im  Grundriss,  has  been  trans- 
lated into  English  under  the  title.  Outlines  of  Church 
History,  Macmillan  &  Co.,  1895  (1901),  from  the 
Eighth  Revised  German  Edition  of  1893.  It  is  there- 
fore all  the  more  remarkable  that  his  greatest  and 
most  noted  work  is  almost  unknown  in  England  and 
America  :  —  it  has  not  been  translated  ;  it  has  not  even 
been  reviewed,  so  far  as  I  know ;  and  of  the  many 
scholars  who,  since  the  publication  of  his  book,  have 
written  in  English  upon  the  subject  of  Church 
organization,   almost   none    (McGiffert    and    Schmiedel 


viii  PREFACE 

being  the  only  exceptions  I  am  aware  of)  give  the  least 
hint  that  they  are  acquainted  with  the  far-reaching 
results  of  a  study  which  constitutes  at  the  very  least 
a  new  point  of  departure  for  all  future  investigations 
into  the  character  of  primitive  Christianity  and  the 
development  of  the  Catholic  organization. 

This  strange  neglect  is  perhaps  due  in  part  to  the 
fact  that  the  title  of  Sohm's  book  does  not  clearly 
suggest  the  character  of  its  contents.  Of  the  whole 
work,  entitled  Kirchenrecht,  only  the  first  volume,  Die 
Geschichtlichen  Grundlagen  (1892),  has  yet  appeared. 
This  part,  as  its  title  indicates,  is  substantially  an  intro- 
duction  to  the  study  of  ecclesiastical  law ;  but  it  is  a 
voluminous  introduction,  comprising  seven  hundred 
large  octavo  pages.  Writers  upon  ecclesiastical  law 
are  not  wont  to  press  their  inquiries  back  to  the 
origins  of  Church  institutions,  to  consider  the  nature 
of  the  Church  of  God,  or  the  character  and  significance 
of  the  early  Christian  ministry,  —  still  less  to  raise  the 
primary  question  whether  there  is  justification  for  law 
of  any  sort  in  the  Ecclesia.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore, 
that  students  of  early  Christian  institutions  have  not 
imagined  that  a  work  bearing  such  a  title  might  come 
within  their  province. 

But  this  is  only  a  partial  explanation  of  the  neglect 
of  Sohm's  work.  The  fact  is  rather  significant  of  the 
narrow  acquaintance  of  English-speaking  scholars  with 
German  theological  literature.  The  influence  of  Ger- 
man scholarship  upon  America  is  great,  in  certain 
provinces  it  is  paramount,  —  too  great,  I  cannot  but 
think.  But  while  the  latest  works  in  Biblical  criticism 
and  the  works  of  those  few  scholars  who  have  gained  a 
popular   fame   in   England   and   America   are   eagerly 


PREFACE  ix 

translated  while  they  are  still  wet  from  the  press,  the 
most  important  works  in  other  fields  of  study  are  only 
tardily  recognized.  This  is  especially  true  in  the  field 
of  early  Church  history,  in  which  German  scholarship 
has  confessedly  the  preeminence.  The  situation  is, 
indeed,  readily  explained  by  the  fact  that  there  are  few 
students  of  this  subject  in  America: — comparatively 
few  of  the  many  students  who  go  to  the  German 
universities  to  complete  their  training  devote  them- 
selves expressly  to  this  study,  while  English  scholars 
are  in  general  less  disposed  to  turn  for  illumination 
to  the  Continent. 

Upon  its  appearance  in  1892,  Sohm's  book  was  at 
once  recognized  in  Germany  as  an  epoch-making  work. 
A  considerable  literature  of  criticism  and  comment  has 
already  grown  up  about  it.  No  independent  study  of 
the  subject  has  since  appeared,  and  it  is  safe  to  add 
that  no  work  is  likely  to  be  produced  which  does  not 
found  itself  substantially  upon  Sohm's  results.  Sohm's 
most  radical  critic  confesses  the  charm  and  power  of  his 
work,  accepts  in  the  main  his  historical  results,  and 
acknowledges  that  he  has  thrown  new  light  upon  innu- 
merable points,  and  explained  many  of  the  problems 
that  have  hitherto  been  regarded  as  the  most  obscure 
in  the  study  of  early  Church  organization ;  —  nay, 
more,  he  proclaims  that  "  any  one,  be  he  jurist  or  theo- 
logian, who  would  to-day  study  seriously  the  subject  of 
ecclesiastical  law,  must  make  himself  acquainted  with 
Sohm's  book,  as  the  most  notable  production  of  modern 
times  in  the  sphere  of  ecclesiastical  jurisprudence,  and 
must  take  his  stand  with  relation  to  it "  (Kahl,  Lelir- 
system  des  Kir chenr edits,  1894,  pp.  71,  sqq.).  This,  as 
an  example,  may  suffice  to  show  that  it  is  not  for  lack 


X  PREFACE 

of  appreciation  at  home  that  Sohm's  work  has  failed  to 
gain  recognition  abroad. 

To  say  that  my  work  is  an  interpretation  is  not  to 
imply  that  Sohm's  book  is  obscure.  On  the  contrary,  it 
is  a  masterpiece  of  clear  and  cogent  argumentation, 
expressed  in  the  most  classic  German  idiom.  I  hope 
that  my  book  may  prompt  others  to  draw  directly  from 
this  stimulating  source,  and  I  could  wish  to  see  in  Eng- 
lish a  literal  translation  of  the  whole  of  it.  But  a  Ger- 
man book  is  not  completely  rendered  into  English  when 
it  is  merely  translated.  The  difference  of  intellectual 
atmosphere  has  to  be  taken  into  account ;  and  to  adapt 
a  book  to  the  specific  interests  and  uses  of  our  own 
situation,  —  in  this  case  our  religious  situation,  —  it 
may  be  necessary  to  alter  both  emphasis  and  propor- 
tion. I  have  made  liberal  use  of  the  material  of  Sohm's 
work,  but  I  have  dealt  with  it  very  freely.  I  defend  in 
the  main  the  same  thesis,  but  I  defend  it  in  my  own 
way.  If  any  one  find  my  argument  inconclusive,  it  is 
to  be  hoped  that  he  will  not  dismiss  a  case  of  so  great 
importance  without  hearing  also  the  senior  counsel.  If, 
however,  I  may  claim  that  my  work  is  an  improvement 
upon  Sohm's,  this  is  no  more  than  to  say  that,  consider- 
ing the  different  interests  I  have  in  view,  I  dare  count 
myself  justified  both  in  the  additions  I  have  made  and 
in  the  omissions.  As  an  introduction  to  ecclesiastical 
law,  it  is  natural  that  Sohm's  book  should  deal  chiefly 
with  the  later  development  of  Church  institutions,  both 
Catholic  and  Protestant.  I  have  reversed  that  propor- 
tion. In  this  first  volume  I  have  considered  at  far  greater 
length  than  does  Sohm  the  notion  of  the  Church  and 
the  development  of  organization  in  the  primitive  age, 
this  being  a  subject  which  has  a  closer  practical  bearing 


PREFACE  xi 

upon  our  present-day  religious  problems,  and  is  more 
likely  to  enlist  a  popular  interest.  In  the  second 
volume  I  propose  to  present  a  hriefer  account  than 
Sohm  gives  of  the  Catholic  development.  The  extent 
of  my  dependence  upon  Sohm  can  hardly  be  stated 
quantitatively,  but  some  notion  of  it  may  be  derived 
from  the  fact  that  this  first  volume  of  nearly  400  pages 
corresjDonds  roughly  to  a  chapter  of  156  pages  in 
Sohm's  work,  while  even  of  that  there  is  about  a  third 
of  which  I  have  taken  no  account.  My  more  specific 
obligations  to  Sohm  I  have  invariably  noted  in  the 
context.  I  may  remark  here  that  even  where  I  have 
followed  him  most  closely  I  have  discarded  the  innu- 
merable references  which  he  makes  to  modern  German 
authors  and  to  discussions  with  which  the  English 
reader  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  familiar. 

More  than  one  third  of  Sohm's  work  is  devoted  to 
a  discussion  of  the  development  of  ecclesiastical  law 
since  the  Reformation  —  particularly  in  Germany,  This, 
of  course,  I  have  omitted.  But  in  lieu  thereof  I  have 
given  in  the  Introduction  a  succinct  account  of  the 
principles  which  determined  the  development  of  Eng- 
lish denominationalism.  This  may  serve  at  once  to 
reveal  the  need  of  a  reconstruction  of  our  view  of  early 
Christian  institutions,  and  to  point  the  application  of 
the  historical  results  which  are  set  forth  in  this  book. 
The  neglect  into  which  the  study  of  early  Church 
government  has  fallen  among  American  Protestants  I 
cannot  but  attribute  to  the  mere  despair  of  arriving  at 
any  concordant  and  convincing  conclusions  about  the 
principles  which  determined  the  organization  of  the 
primitive  Church.  But  I  cannot  acquiesce  in  such  de- 
spair, nor  can  I  repress  the  hope  that  earnest  and  can- 


xii  PREFACE 

did  study  may  help  to  dissipate  the  barriers  of  prejudice 
which  now  divide  Protestant  Christendom.  Those  who 
do  not  resent  our  divisions,  and  who  like  no  criticism 
of  denominational  institutions,  will  spare  themselves 
annoyance  by  beginning  with  Chapter  II. 

My  precise  relation  to  Sohm's  book  will  be  the  better 
understood,  and  I  hope  justified,  if  I  may  be  permitted 
to  narrate  the  circumstances  which  led  me  to  use  it  as  I 
have.  I  first  read  the  book  in  1893,  during  the  first 
year  of  a  course  of  study  in  Germany.  I  read  it  then 
with  the  more  interest  because  the  subject  was  one 
which  I  had  long  studied  intently,  and  which  had  lately 
become  to  me  a  matter  of  personal  and  practical  con- 
cern. This  study  has  remained  one  of  my  most  engross- 
ing avocations,  and  in  all  the  work  I  have  since  done 
upon  it  I  have  been  profoundly  influenced  by  Sohm's 
book.  Sohm's  influence,  however,  has  been  in  the  main 
an  unconscious  one,  and  when  I  started  to  prepare  a 
work  on  Church  organization,  I  was  quite  unaware  of 
the  extent  of  my  obligation.  It  was  not  till  I  had  actu- 
ally begun  to  write  that  I  re-read  his  book,  and  recog- 
nized to  my  dismay  that  many  of  the  results  which  I 
accounted  substantial  contributions  of  my  own  were 
rightly  his  peculiar  property.  Nothing  was  left  for  me 
but  to  beg  permission  to  make  free  use  of  the  mate- 
rial of  Professor  Sohm's  book,  —  a  request  which  was 
at  once  granted  by  both  the  author  and  his  publisher  in 
the  most  generous  spirit  and  on  the  most  liberal  terms. 
I  cannot  sufficiently  express  my  gratitude  for  such  per- 
mission. For  it  has  enabled  me  not  only  greatly  to 
enrich  my  book,  but  to  claim  expressly  the  support  of 
so  distinguished  an  authority.  At  the  same  time  I  am 
bound  to  disclaim  for  Sohm  all  responsibility  for  opin- 


PREFACE  xiii 

ions  which  are  not  here  expressly  referred  to  him.  I 
have  made  the  freest  use  of  the  liberal  terms  of  his 
permission.  The  form  of  the  work  is  almost  totally 
independent :  I  have  adhered  in  the  main,  particularly 
in  this  volume,  to  the  original  plan  which  I  sketched 
before  I  had  any  thought  of  reference  to  Sohm.  I  have 
omitted  without  notice  many  interpretations  which 
seemed  to  me  unsound,  and  I  have  explicitly  stated  my 
disagreement  with  some  of  the  opinions  which  Sohm 
may  count  of  capital  importance.  All  of  these  changes 
seem  to  me  to  add  strength  to  the  main  position,  and  at 
all  events  my  work  may  claim  the  value  which  belongs 
to  a  candid  reinvestigation. 

Many  a  writer  will  sympathize  with  an  embarrass- 
ment —  by  no  means  unusual  except  in  degree  —  which 
I  encountered  in  the  preparation  of  this  work.  I  had 
planned  and  prepared  to  include  a  full  study  of  the 
early  doctrine  and  ritual  of  the  Eucharist,  a  discussion 
of  the  principles  of  common  worship  in  the  Church,  and 
a  history  of  English  sectarian  controversy  about  organ- 
ization and  ritual.  The  pertinency  and  congruence  of 
all  these  themes  will  be  recognized  by  whoever  reads 
this  book.  But  at  the  same  time  it  will  be  recognized 
that  the  plan  of  including  them  all  in  a  single  volume 
was  not  practicable.  I  am  well  satisfied  to  substitute  the 
brief  account  of  the  principles  of  sectarian  division 
which  I  have  included  in  the  Introduction,  in  place  of 
a  fuller  history  of  so  painful  a  subject.  The  studies 
I  have  made  upon  the  other  subjects  I  hope  to  publish 
in  a  separate  work,  and  I  have  treated  them  here  only 
so  far  as  the  present  argument  demands.  But  even  as 
thus  restricted,  my  theme  has  proved  too  large  for  a 
single  volume.     And    this    is   due    chiefly  to  the   fact 


xiv  PREFACE 

that  the  opinions  maintained  in  this  work  are  too 
novel  to  be  advanced  without  detailed  proof. 

The  present  volume,  however,  is  complete  in  itself, 
as  a  study  of  the  primitive  institutions  of  the  Church. 
The  second  volume  will  treat  of  the  characteristic  de- 
velopments of  Catholicism,  under  the  following  heads : 
Chapter  V.  The  Diocese;  Chapter  VI.  Synods  and 
Councils;  Chapter  VII.  The  Metropolitan,  the  Patri- 
arch, and  the  Pope.  This,  too,  may  properly  be 
considered  an  independent  theme,  though  the  most 
distinctive  feature  of  my  representation  of  the  subject 
(which  is  again  Sohm's)  is  the  proof  that  the  whole 
development  of  Catholic  institutions  was  conditioned  by 
ideas  which,  perverted  as  they  were,  may  be  traced  back 
to  the  very  beginnings  of  Christianity.  The  first  part 
of  this  work  therefore  constitutes  the  foundation  of  the 
second,  and  the  second  substantiates  the  first. 

I  am  sorry  that  Principal  Lindsay's  work,  The  Church 
and  the  Ministry,  London,  1902,  did  not  reach  me 
until  April  of  this  year,  —  too  late  to  be  noticed  in 
this  book.  It  is  especially  significant  as  the  only  con- 
siderable treatment  of  this  subject  from  a  Presbyterian 
source.  It  also  displays  a  broader  acquaintance  with 
modern  studies  and  recently  discovered  sources  of  infor- 
mation than  does  any  other  work  in  English.  It  is 
therefore  all  the  more  disappointing  to  note  the  con- 
troversial temper  in  which  it  is  written,  and  its  shallow 
conception  of  the  problems  which  it  handles.  The 
importance  of  Sohm's  work  here  at  last  receives  express 
recognition;  but  it  is  neither  adequately  understood 
nor  fairly  interpreted. 

WALTER  LOWRIE. 
Keene  Valley,  in  the  Adirondacks, 
July,  1903. 


A  LIST   OF   THE   WOEKS   MOST  FEEQUENTLY 

CITED 

ACHELis,  Die  dltesten  Quellen  des  orienialiscJien  Kirchenrechts.  Erstes 
Buch,  Die  Canones  Hippolyli.  In  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  edited 
by  Gebhardt  and  Harnack,  Bd.  6,  Heft  4.     Leipsic,  1891. 

Allex,   Christian  Instilutioiis.     New  York,  1897. 

Apostolic  Church  Order,  —  for  its  sources  s.  Harnack. 

BixGHAM,  Origines  Ecclesiasticae  —  The  Antiquities  of  the  Christian 
Church.     2  vol.     Oxford,  1856. 

^V'SfSi'Ei^,  Analecta  Ante-Nicaena.  3  vol.  Londini,  1854.  Vol.  II.  contains 
the  recension  of  the  Syrian  Didaskalia,  the  source  of  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions,  by  Paul  Botticher  (De  Lagarde). 

dementis  Alexandrini  Opera,  ed.  Dindorf.     4  vol.     Oxonii,  1869. 

Constitutiones  aposioloriim,  ed.  De  Lagarde.  Lipsiae,  1862  ;  and  in 
BuNSEN,  Analecta,  vol.  II. 

Cypriani  Opera,  ed.  G.  Hartel.     3  vol.     Vindobonae,  1868-71. 

Didache,  —  The  Teaching  of  the  Apostles.  Especially  the  ed.  of  Har- 
nack: Lehre  der  zwolf  Apostel,  nebst  Untersuchungen  zur  jiltesten 
Geschichte  der  Kirchenverfassung  und  des  Kirchenrechts.  Leipsic, 
1893.     In  Texte  und   Untersuchungen,  I.  1,  2. 

Didaskalia,  —  the  source  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  ed.  of  Lagarde  in 

BuNSEN,  Analecta,  vol.  II. 
Eusehii  Caesariensis  Opei-a,  ed.  Dindorf.     Lipsiae,  1871. 
Funk,  Die  apostolischen  Konstilutionen.     Rottenburg,  1891. 

"  Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhandlungen  und  Untersuchungen.  Paderborn, 
vol  I.  1897,  vol.  II.  1899. 

Gayford,  art.  Church,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  New  York,  1900-1902. 

Gore,    The  Christian  Ministry.     London,  1889. 

Harnack,  A.,  Prolegomena  to  his  ed.  of  the  Didache  (q.  v.),  in  Texte 
u.  Untersuchungen,  I.  1,  2.     Leipsic,  1893. 

*'  Die  Quellen  der  sogennanten  apostolischen  Kirchenordnung,  nebst  einer 
Untersuchung  iiber  den  Ursprung  des  Lectorats  und  der  anderen  nie- 
deren  Weihen.  In  Texte  u.  Untersuch.  II.  5.  Leipsic,  1886.  Eng- 
lish trans.,  entitled   Sources  of  The  Apostolic  Canons,  London,  1895. 

"    Art.  Presbyter  in  the  Expositor  for  Jan.-June,  1887,  pp.  324  sqq. 

Harnack,  Th.,  Der  christliche  Gemeindegottesdienst  in  apostolischen  und 
altkatholischen  Zeitalter.     Erlangen,  1854. 

Hatch,  The  Organization  of  the  Early  Christian  Churches.  London  and 
New  York,  4th  ed.  1892.  Translated  and  discussed  by  Harnack: 
Die  Gesellschaftsverfassung  der  christlichen  Kirchen  im  Altertum.  Gie- 
sen,  1883. 

Herzog,  Real-Encyklopddie  fiir  protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche.  3rd 
ed.  by  Hauck.     Leipsic,  1896-. 


xvi     A  LIST  OF  THE  WORKS  MOST  FREQUENTLY  CITED 

HoFLiNG,  Die  Lehre  der  dllesten  Kirche  vom  Opfer  im  Leben  und  Cullns 

der  Christen.     Erlangen,  1838. 
HoRT,   The  Christian  Ecclesia.     London  and  New  York,  1900. 

HoLTZMANN,  Die  Pastor albriefe  krittsch  und  exegetisch  behandelt.  Leipsic, 
1880. 

5.  Irenaei,  episcopi  Lugdunensis  lihri  quinque  adversus  haereses,  ed.  W. 
Harvey.     Cantabrigiae,  1857. 

Kahl,  Lehrsystem  des  K irchenrechts  und  der  Kirchenpolitik:  Pt.  T.  Frei- 
burg i.  Br.  and  Leipsic,  1894. 

De  Lagardp;,  Relinquiae  juris  ecclesiastici  antiquissimi.    Lipsiae,   1856. 

Liber  Pontijicalis,  ed.  Duchesne.     Paris,  1886. 

LiGHTFOOT,  J.  B.,  Saint  Paul's   Epistle  to  the   Philippians,  containing  a 
Dissertation  on  the   Christian  Ministry.     6th   ed.     London   and   New 
York,  1890. 
"    Saint  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.     London,  1869. 

"  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  Pt.  L,  S.  Clement  of  Rome,  2  vol.  1890.  Pt. 
IL,  .S.  Ignatius,  S.  Polycarp,  3  vol.,  2nd  ed.  1889.  London  and  New 
York. 

LoNiNG,  Die  Gemeindeverfassung  des  UrchristeiUums .     Halle,  1889. 

Patrum  apostolicorum  opera,  ed.  Gebhardt,  Harnack,  Zahx.  Fascia. 
I.-III.     Lipsiae,  1875-77.     Editio  minor.     Lipsiae,  1877. 

RiEDEL,  Die  Kirchengeschichtsquellen  des  Patriarchiats  Alexandrien,  1900. 

RiTSCHL,  A.,  Die  Entstehung  der  altkatholischen  Kirche.  2nd  ed.  Bonn, 
1857. 

RiTSCHL,  O.,  Cyprian  von  Karthago  und  die  Verfassung  der  Kirche. 
Gdttingen,  i885. 

ROTHE,  Die  Anfdnge  der  christlichen  Kirche  und  ihrer  Verfassung.  Wit- 
tenberg, 1837. 

ScHMiEDEL,  art.  Ministry  in  The  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  Oxford,  1899- 
1903. 

SCHURER,  English  trans.:  A  History  of  the  Jeioish  People  in  the  Time  of 
Jesus  Christ.     5  vol.     Edinburg,  1890-91. 

Smith  and  Cheetham,  editors,  A  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities. 
London,  1890. 

Tertulliani  Opera,  ed.  Oeler,  3  vol.     Lipsiae,  1853. 

Texte  und  Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur, 
edited  by  O.  v.  Gebhardt  and  A.  Harnack.     Leipsic,  1882-. 

Weizs ACKER,  Das  apostolische  Zeitalter  der  christlichen  Kirche.  2nd  ed. 
Freiburg  i.  Br.,  1892. 

Wordsworth,  J.,  The  Ministry  of  Grace.  London  and  New  York, 
1901. 

Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamendichen  Kanons  und  der 
altkirchlichen  Literatur.  3  vol.  Erlangen,  1881-84.  Vol.  IIL  pp. 
278  sqq.  contains  a  study  of  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles. 

"  Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons.  2  vol.  Erlangen  and 
Leipsic,  1888-91. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 


CHAPTEE  I 

INTRODUCTION 

Page 

1.  DENOMINATIONAL      CONTROVERSY      ABOUT 

THE   MINISTRY   A   QUESTION    OF    FORM 

Illustrated  by  history  of  dispute  between  the  Dissen- 
ters and  the  Church  of  England 1 

Recognized  in  our  modern  attitude  toward  the  subject       3 
Essential  contrast  between  spiritual  and  legal  rule      .       3 
(Note  A.    Local  adaptation  of  the  episcopate.    The- 
ory of  Wordsworth  and  Gore.    Anglican  and  Roman 
doctrine  of  the  gradus  episcopale) 5 

2.  LEGALIZED   CHRISTIANITY 

Necessity  of  legal  organization  commonly  assumed     .       9 

Development  of  Catholicism  inconsistent  with  the 
assumption  that  the  primitive  Church  was  legally 
organized 10 

Legalization  of  Christianity  is  the  essence  of  Catholi- 
cism       11 

(Note  1.    Problem  of  origin  of  Catholicism  —  Baur, 
Ritschl,  and  Renan) 11 

Far-reaching  effects  of  this  principle 12 

3.  NO  CATHOLIC  CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  FORM  OF 

THE  MINISTRY 

Early  writers  (Clement,  Ignatius,  Hermas)  reveal  no 
controversy  about  form  of  monarchical  episcopacy 

Development  of  metropolitan  authority 14 

(Note  4.    Irenaeus,  Cyprian,  TertuUian  on  Roman 
episcopate) 16 

Jerome's  dictum  about  equality  of  presbyter  and 
bishop       16 

Right  interpretation  of  Jerome's  view 18 

(Note  B.    Problem  of  Alexandrian  episcopate  dis- 
cussed)       23 


xviii  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 

§  4.   REFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  page 

,/  Protest  of  the  reformers  against  Catholic  idea  of  the 

Church SV^ 

The  visible  and  invisible  Church  according  to  Wyclif     34 
Lxtther  and  Lutlieranism. 

Idea  of  the  Church 34" 

Church  government  by  the  ministry  of  the  word      .     35; 

Relation  of  Church  and  State 39( 

Reformed  Doctrine  of  the  Church. 

ZwiNGLi's    doctrine    of    the   visible    and    invisible 

Church 41 

(Note  11.   Profound  effect  of   this  view  upon  the 

Reformed  churches) 42 

His  idea  of  congregational  independency  ....  45 
Calvin  put  Zwingli's  theory  into  practice  ....  49 
His    idea    of    the   relation    between    Church    and 

State 50 

Practical  modifications  of  Zwingli's  theory      ...     51 
Ascribed  (in  a  sense)  the  power  of  the  keys  to 

the  ministry  of  the  word 52 

Recognized    the   principle   of    representation  in 

Church  government  (discipline) 53 

(Note  16.  Thejwre  divino  form  of  government  a  part 

of  the  Presb3'terian  creed) 54 

Practical  considerations   determined   the   form   of 

government  which  Calvin  established  at  Geneva     56 
Yet  he  supported  the  system  by  proof-texts  and 

accounted  \tjure  divino 59 

(Note  20.   The  Waldensian  fable  of  the  origin  of 

their  form  of  government) 59 

The  right  form  of  the  ministry  is  one  of  the  es- 
sential notes  of  the  Church  according  to  Re- 
formed doctrine 60 

Anglican  principles 61*^ 

§  5.  DENOMINATIONAL  CONTROVERSY 

England  its  chief  arena  and  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly the  classical  epitome 62  : 

Explained  by  the  Reformed  principle  that  nothing  is 
lawful  in  the  Church  which  is  not  plainly  sanctioned 
by  Scripture 63 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS  xix 

Page 
The    above   contrasted  with  the  common  Protestant 

principle  that  Scripture  contains  all  things  necessary 

to  salvation 64 

The  dispute  about  ritual  relatively  of  little  moment  .  68 

Tlie  Westminster  Assembly. 

Its  political  embarrassments 69  r 

(Note  4.    The  various  works  undertaken  by  the  As- 
sembly)       69 

Method  of  argument  to  establish  Scriptural  form  of 

government 73 

The  ruling  elder 75 

Classical  presbyteries 76 

Ecclesiastical  autonomy  and  Erastianism  ....  78 
The  "  Queries  "  of  parliament  on  jure  divino  govern- 
ment         79 

Formation  of  our  later  sects  accounted  for  by  the  same 

principle  which  divided  the  Assembly 81 

(Note   9.    The    enthusiastic     (spiritual)    sects,  — 

Quakers,  etc.) 82 

Controversial  works  on  the  ministry 83 

MODERN  STUDY  OF  CHURCH  ORGANIZATION 

In  general 85 

Rothe        86 

Baur SQ 

Ritschl 87 

Lightfoot 89 

Renan,  etc 91 

Hatch 92 

(Note  4.    Harnack's  comment  on  Hatch.     Value  of 

his  discovery  and  study  of  early  documents)       .     .  92 
(Note  6.    Was    the   Church    recognized    by    the 
heathen  state  as  a  civil  corporation  on  a  par  with 

the  collegia^) 95 

The  organization  of  the  Church  not  derived  from  the 

synagogue  —  Schiirer 96 

Theory  of  original  identity  of  presbyter  and  bishop  is 

now  discredited 96 

(Note  9.    Modern  works  on  Church  government)     .  97 

Legal  organization  of  the  Church  vs.  charismatic   .     .  98 

Sohm's  view 100 


TABLE  OF   C0NTENT;S 

PART   I 

PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIANITY 


CHAPTER   II 

THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH 

,--«.  Page 

§  7.    SIGNIFICANCE   OF   THE   NAME   ECCLESIA 

Meaning  and  use  of  the  English  word  Church  .     .     .  102 

(Note  1.   Derivation  of  the  word  Church)     .     .     .  102 

The  word  Ecclesia  in  Classical  Greek 103 

The  use  of  the  word  in  the  Septuagint  explains  its 

meaning  in  the  New  Testament 104 

Significance  of  Jesus'  choice  of  this  word     ....  105 

v/The  holiness  of  the  Church 106 

§  8.    JESUS'   USE   OF  THE  WORD   CHURCH 

The  historical  question  of  the  actual  employment  of 

the  word  by  Jesus 108 

(Note  C.  Relation  of  the  Church  to  the  Kingdom)  110 
The  idea  of  discipleship  in  Jesus'  teaching  .  .  .  .  114 
In  speaking  of  Ms  Church  Jesus  implied  a  Messianic 

claim 116 

The  word  implies  assembly 117 

Jesus'  idea  of  the  Church  excludes  the   distinction 

between  local  and  universal 118 

The  power  of  binding  and  loosing  as  ascribed  to  the 

Church  and  to  the  individual  disciple 120 

Peter  as  the  rock  upon  which  Christ  will  build  his 

Church 122 

§C^THE   APOSTOLIC   NOTION   OF  THE   CHURCH 

The  idea  of  the  school  of  Jesus 123 

Names  which  indicated  a  higher  idea  of  discipleship 

—  brethren  and  saints 126 

i/TThe  Christian  idea  of  Koivwvta  —  fellowship  or  com- 
munion     127 

All  of  these  conceptions  are  consonant  with  Jesus' 
idea  of  the  Church 129 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS  xxi 

Page 
The  Church  was  not   influenced   by  the  synagogue 

either  in  idea  or  in  organization 130 

The  full  name  of  the  Church  in  the  New  Testament 
is  "  the  Church  of  God  " 133 

The  Greek  state  arid  the  Hebrew  theocracy  knew  but 
one  Eceiesia  —  New  Testament  usage  appears  dis- 
similar      135 

Sohm's  solution  of  the  problem  presented  by  this 
usage  —  the  one  Church  and  the  many.    Ubi  tres,  ihi 

eceiesia 136 

§  10.    THE   IDEA   OF   CHURCH    ORGANIZATION 

There  can  be  no  legal  organization  for  the  Eceiesia  .     141 
»  Church  order  is  a  part  of  Christian  doctrine     .     .     .     143 
(Note  D.    St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  Chm-ch  order  — 
and  the  transition  to  the  early  Catholic  view)    .     .     143 
*  The   charismatic    organization  of  the   Church,    and 

brotherly  love  as  its  complement 147  <' 

(Note  E.    Discussion  of  Sohm's  work  in  Germany. 
Criticism  of  Kahl's  defence  of  the  "  legal  Church  ")     150 

§11.   SIGNIFICANCE  OF  ORDER  AND  CUSTOM  IN 
THE    CHURCH 

,  To  discard  law  as  a  means  of  order  is  not  to  relin- 
quish the  aim  of  maintaining  any  order  or  organiza- 
tion    156 

Meek  subjection  to  one  another  in  brotherly  love, 
which  is  the  true  bond  of  order,  is  weakened  by 

appeal  to  law 157 

(Note  F.    The  idea  of  meekness  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment}   158 

The  spirit  of  conformity 165 

St.  Paul's  interest  in  maintaining  order  and  con- 
formity     167  - 

The  means  he  resorted  to  for  attaining  this  end  — 
with  respect  both  to  the  whole  Church  and  the 

single  congregation 168" 

His  estimate  of  the  authority  of  custom 172- 

(Note  15.    The  popular  unifying  ideal  of  to-day  in 

the  secular  world 177 

Custom  and  customary  law  distinguished     .     .     .     .     179-n 

Customary  law  in  the  Catholic  Church ^^^b 

Customary  law  in  the  Protestant  Churches  ....     181^^ 


X 


xxu  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   III 
THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION 

§  12.   OF   CHURCH  ASSEMBLIES  IN   GENERAL  page 

X  Assembly  a  necessary  expression  of  the  Christian  life  184 

The  prime  object  of  coming  together  is  to  be  together  185 
Mutual  edification,  not  the  performance  of  a  cult,  was 

the  object  of  the  assembly' 186 

^Unique  character  of  the  Christian  assembly      .     .     .  187 

The  "  reasonable  service  " 188 

—  The  character  of  the  assembly  defines  the  nature  of 

the  Christian  ministry 189 

*  Essentially  there  was  but  one  kind  of  assembly    .     .  190 
A  distinction  was  practically  made  between  the  as- 
sembly for  instruction  and  the  assembly  for  the 

Eucharist 190 

Regular  days  of  assembly  —  the  Lord's  Day    .     .     .  192 
Union  of  the  two  sorts  of  assembly  in  the  2nd  cent. 

and  its  effects 193 

(Note  9.    Pliny's  account  of  the  Christian  assembly)  193 

The  principal  assembly  and  minor  assemblies  .     .     .  195 

§  13.    CONDUCT  OF   THE   ASSEMBLY 

Of  what  value  is  the  information  in  1  Cor.  14  for  the 

character  of  the  Christian  assembly  ? 196 

— The  body  and  its  members  —  a  plea  for  order,  1  Cor. 

12 197 

Liberty  and  order 198 

Freedom  of  participation  in  the  instruction  of  the  as- 
sembly      199 

The  discerning  of  spirits 200 

Order  and  liberty  not  incompatible 201 

«^he  order  of  the  assembly  cannot  be  a  legal  order    .     202 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  participation  was  not  so  gen- 
eral as  is  commonly  supposed 203 

~^he  charisma  and  the  Church  office 204 

(Note  5.    The  gift  of  teaching  and  the  gift  of  min- 
istry)   205 

High  valuation  of  the  spiritual  gifts  accounts  for  the 
.^        development  of  a  traditional  order  of  government 

and  ritual 207 


TABLE  OF   CONTENTS  xxiii 

§  14.   PRAYER   AND    PRAISE  p^^e 

The  constituents  of  Christian  worship  and  instruction 
The  psalm  (including  hymns  and  songs)  a  specific 

variety  of  prayer 209 

Prayer  and  praise  distinguished,  —  Thanksgiving      .     210 

Extempore  and  formal  prayer 212 

(Note  G.    Examples  of  early  psalms.     Psalms  and 

the  liturgy) 213 

§  15.   THE   GIFT   OF  TEACHING 

The  "gift  of  teaching,"  used   in  a  broad  sense  to 

cover  all  instructive  manifestations  of  the  Spirit    .     218 
The  assembly  conducted  itself  under  the  leadership 

of  the  gifted  teachers 219 

The  administration  of  public  worship  belonged  to 

•     the  teachers  as  such 220 

(Note  4.    The  jus  liturr/icum  o(  the  hishop)  .     .     .     221 
The   "gifts"  do   not   correspond   precisely  to   the 

offices 221 

What  is  included  under  the  notion  of  "  doctrine  "  in 

the  N.  T 222 

The  particularity  of  teaching  (didache  or  didaskalia)     224 

Admonition 225 

Public  admonition  and  discipline 226 

The  Lord's  rule  concerning  reproof,  admonition,  and 

discipline 227 

The  case  of  discipline  in  1  Cor.  5  :  3-5 228 

»       (Note  13.    The  authority  of  the  Catholic  bishop 

over  discipline) 229 

Discipline  essentially  a  function  of  the  teacher     .     .     230 
Character  and  authority  of  N.  T.  prophecy  —  its  par- 
ticularity       230 

Character  and  authority  of  "  teaching  " 232 

The  word  of  God  the  final  authority  for  Church 

order 233 

In  questions  of  election,  excommunication,  and 

absolution 235 

The  power  of  the  keys 237 

§  16.   THE  TEACHING  OFFICE 

(Note  2.    r]yovfx.€voi  and  reTLixTjfxevoi) 239 

^    Apostles  and  evangelists 240 


xxiv  TABLE   OF  CONTENTS 

Page 

Prophets 243 

Teachers 244 

An  apostolic  gift  was  common  to  all  three  ....     245 
The  Gospel  was  their  sole  vocation  and  support  .     .     247 

§  17.   THE   TEACHERS   AND  THE   ASSEMBLY 

The  teachers  properly  officers  though  they  enjoyed 
no  legal  authority 248 

The  assembly  exercised  no  legal  authority  in  electing     250 

The  formal  recognition  of  a  teacher  did  not  make 
him  a  teacher,  nor  make  his  word  God's  word  .     .     251 

The  teacher  acted  in  the  name  of  God,  not  in  the 
name  of  the  Church 252 

§  18.    ELECTION   AND    ORDINATION 

Election. 

Election  by  the  Church  is  properly  regarded  as 

God's  election 253 

Election  of  Paul  and  Barnabas 253 

Election  of  Matthias 254 

Election  of  Timothy 254 

Election  denotes  the  assent  of  the  assembly  to  God's 

choice 255 

(Note  4.  Election  of  bishops  and  deacons  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  spiritual  act,  like  that  of  Apos- 
tles)        256 

Laying  on  of  Hands. 

Not  to  be  explained  by  the  O.  T.  rite 257 

(Note  7.    The  O.  T.  idea  of  this  rite)   ....     258 
(Note  8.   The  N.  T.  rite  defined  by  the  accom- 
panying prayer) 259 

As  a  means  of  healing  the  sick 260 

Here  used  as  an  exorcism 260 

(Note  9.    The  official  exorcist  of  a  later  time)     260 

In  ordination,  too,  it  signifies  exorcism    .     .     .     .     261 

(Note  11.    Absolving  effect  of  ordination)       .     262 

It  does  not  generate  the  charisma,  but  confirms  it     262 

Practically,  it  facilitates  recognition      ....     263 

Election  and  ordination  have  no  legal  effect,  just 

because  they  have  to  do  with  office  in  Christendom     264 

»    There  are  no  legal  congregations  of  Christendom, 

but  only  assemblies 265 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS  xxv 

CHAPTER    IV 

THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY 

19.   THE  EUCHARIST  —  ITS  SIGNIFICANCE   FOR 

CHURCH  ORDER  AND  ORGANIZATION  page 

The  Eucharistic  assembly,  not  the  assembly  for  in- 
struction, defined  the  organization  of  the  ministry     266 

Sketch  of  the  Development  of  the  EucharisHcCelebration. 

Necessity  of  a  president  at  the  Lord's  table     .     .     .     268 

No  disciple  was  theoretically  excluded  from  this 
function 268 

Minor  Eucharistic  assemblies  and  the  principal  as- 
sembly      270 

Who  shall  preside  at  the  Eucharist  ? 271 

(1)  One  of  the  apostolic  teachers 271 

(2)  One  of  the  older  disciples  ("elders"),  who  by 
such  appointment  became  a  bishop 272 

Relation  of  the  deacons  to  the  Eucharist  ....  275 
Relation  of  the  presbyters  to  the  Eucharist  .  .  .  276 
The  Eucharist  separated  from  the  agape  and  united 

with  the  service  of  instruction 278 

Effects  of  this  change  upon  ritual 282 

Upon  architecture 284 

Upon  government  —  (Catholic  idea  of  sacrifice  and 

priesthood) 287 

The  bishop  sits  in  Christ's  place,  the  presbyters  in 

the  place  of  the  Apostles 289 

This  estimation  of  the  clergy  illustrated  from  the 

writings  of  Ignatius 290 

And  by  the  apsidal  mosaics  of  the  basilicas  .  .  .  291 
The   single   episcopate   correlative  with   the   single 

Eucharistic  assembly 293 

Difficulty  of  carrying  out  the  Ignatian  progi'am  .  .  296 
The  character  of  the  single  episcopate  in  the  Igna- 
tian epistles 299 

The  same  notion  of  the  episcopate  at  Jerusalem  and 

Alexandria 302 

The  great  cities  commonly  required  a  plurality  of 

bishops 304 

The  practical  need  of  a  centralized  organization  .     .     306 


xxvi  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 

Page 

The  theory  of  apostolic  succession 307 

Effect  of  the  development  of  the  monarchical  epis- 
copate upon  the  position  of  the  presbyters    .     .     .     310 

§  20.    CHURCH   PROPERTY 

An  important  factor  in  the  development  of  the  con- 
gregational idea 313 

Presidency  at  the  Eucharist  implied  the  reception 

and  distribution  of  the  gifts 314 

Church  property  is  God's  property 316 

It  must  therefore  be  administered  by  the  teacher  (or 

the  bishop)  as  God's  vicar 318 

Even   the   juristic   conception   of  Church    property 
after  the  4th  cent,  did  not  essentially  change  the 

point  of  view 320 

(Note  H.  The  legal  status  of  Church  property)  .  .  321 
The  ministry  supported  from  the  Eucharistic  gifts  .  327 
(Note  I.    Practical  significance  of  the  word ' '  honor  ")     328 

§  21.   BISHOPS 

Early  origin  of  bishops  as  the  ordinary  presidents  at 

the  Eucharist 331 

Criticism  of   the   prevalent  view   which  makes  the 

bishop  merely  an  administrative  officer  .     .     .     .  335 

Presidency   at    the    Eucharist    implies    the   highest 

honor  in  the  Church 336 

The  bishop  performed  the  service  of  the  prophets 

and  teachers 337 

(Note  J.    Discussion  of  the  Didache,  xv.  1)      ...  339 

Ordination  of  bishops 341 

Qualifications  required  of  the  bishop 342 

Bishops  and  Elders. 

Their  relation  according  to  old  and  recent  theories  345 

Sohm's  view 347 

Elders  in  the  Epistle  of  Clement 348 

In  the  Pastoral  Epistles 353 

In  the  Acts,  etc 357 

The  charisma  of  the  bishop  is  the  same  as  that  of 

the  elder 360 

The  bishop  an  appointed  elder 361 

The  bishop  as  teacher 363 

The  episcopal   organization  and  the  charismatic 

ministry 366 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS  xxvii 

Page 

The  primitive  bishop  had  uo  legal  rights      .     .     .     .  367 

No  episcopal  college 368 

§  22.   DEACONS 

Their  relation  to  the  Eucharist 371 

Qualifications  required  of  deacons 374 

A  probation  for  the  diaconate 377 

(Note  K.   The  minor  orders) 379 

§  23.    PRESBYTERS 

Place  of  the  elders  at  the  Eucharist 383 

The  presbyters  as  representatives  of  the  people    .     .  386 
Introduction  of  custom  of  ordaining  to  the  presbyter- 
ate      387 

(Note  L.   Proof  of  Sohm's  view  from  Ignatius,  Her- 

mas,  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  Tertullian,  etc.)    .     .     .  388 

The  presbyterate  originally  not  an  office       .     .     .     .  391 
Functions  of  the  presbyterate  as  revealed  in  Source 

A  of  the  Apostolic  Church  Order 393 

As  the  council  of  the  bishop  in  questions  of  ad- 
ministration    397 

As  the  council  of  the  bishop  in  questions  of  dis- 
cipline    398 

The  order  of  the  Eucharistic  assembly  was  the  order 

of  the  Church 399 


THE    CHURCH 
AND    ITS    ORGANIZATION 


CHAPTER    I 
INTRODUCTION 


§  1,  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVEESY   CHIEFLY 
CONCERNED   WITH   QUESTIONS   OF   FORM 

THE  Protestant  controversies  which  it  here  imports 
to  consider,  by  way  of  introduction  to  the  study  of 
THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY,  are  such  as  relate, 
not  to  the  nature  of  the  Church  of  God,  but  to  the 
ministry  of  the  Church ;  and  here  again  it  is  not  so 
much  the  nature  of  the  Christian  ministry  that  has  been 
at  issue,  as  the  form  of  its  constitution,  the  form  of 
Church  government.  There  has  not  lacked  controversy 
about  the  nature  of  the  Church  and  the  nature  of  the 
ministry,  but  it  is  the  form  of  Church  organization,  the 
form  of  the  ministry,  which  has  chiefly  engrossed  atten- 
tion, because  this  is  an  issue  which  is  obvious  to  all  and 
of  practical  moment  to  many.  This  question  was  not 
seriously  debated  during  the  first  age  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  but,  being  once  raised,  it  became  the  issue  which 
has  divided  Protestantism.  The  controversy  has  not 
been  conducted  altogether  without  reference  to  higher 
considerations ;  but  they,  for  the  most  part,  have  been 
imported  into  it  and  remain  essentially  foreign  to  it. 


2  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

In  reality,  the  form  enshrines  no  truth :  various  consid- 
erations, religious  or  secular,  theoretical  or  practical, 
such  as  from  age  to  age  seemed  best  to  comport  with 
the  spirit  of  the  time,  have  been  urged  in  justification 
of  it,  —  but  it  is  the  form  alone  that  persists. 

The  best  illustration  of  this  fact  is  the  history  of  the 
controversy  between  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Dis- 
senters.    In  the  first  stage  of  this  controversy  we  have 
the  rigoristic  Puritanism  of   Cartwright  and    Travers, 
with  its  jure  divino  Presbyterianism,  its  apostolic  suc- 
cession through  the  presbytery,  the  power  of  the  keys 
shared,  according  to  divine  institution,  by  ruling  and 
teaching   elders ;    opposed   to   the   liberal    (humanistic) 
Episcopalianism  of  Whitgift  and  Hooker,  defended  on 
the  plea  of  expediency,  good  order,  monarchical  policy, 
and  as  not  repugnant  to  Scripture.     In  the  second  stage 
we  have  the  same  rigoristic  Puritanism  in  the  West- 
minster Assembly  —  though  hopelessly  divided  now  be- 
tween the  claims  of  jure  divino  "  classical  presbyteries," 
and  jure  divino  Independency ;  opposed  this  time  to  the 
equally  rigoristic  claims  of  Hall  and  Laud  for  Episco- 
pacy by  divine  institution.     To-day  the  claims  of  Laud 
are  exceeded,   the  Non- Jurors  are   outdone;  for,  by  a 
larger   section   of    the   Anglican    Churches   than    ever 
before,  the  exclusive  power  of  the  keys,  the  exclusive 
apostolic  succession,  the  chief  (if  not  the  exclusive)  au- 
thority to  rule  the  Church,  is  ascribed  to  the  episcopate 
— jure  divino ;  and  opposed  to  this,  what  have  we  for 
the  most  part  but  the  claim  of  expediency  in  behalf  of 
Presbyterian  government  (feebly  made,  though  so  well 
proved),  the  plea  that  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  princi- 
ples of  republican  government,  and  in  none  of  its  details 
repugnant  to  Scripture !     The  doctrine  of  the  ministry 
changes,  the  form  remains. 


§1]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  3 

The  formal  nature  of  this  issue  was  never  so  gen- 
erally recognized  as  now.  Few  of  those  who  still  call 
thero  selves  Protestants  make  an  exclusive  claim  for 
their  ministry,  —  that  is,  refuse  to  recognize  the  validity 
of  a  ministry  otherwise  constituted.  The  changed  atti- 
tude of  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists  has  just 
been  referred  to.  The  great  Methodist  society  was 
organized  expressly  upon  the  principle  of  indifference 
(religiously  considered)  to  the  form  of  the  ministry, — 
an  indifference  like  that  of  the  Lutherans  (Moravians), 
and  directly  traceable  to  them.  Significant  also  of  a 
certain  amount  of  indifference  to  form  is  the  judgment 
of  the  "  Conference  of  Bishops  of  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion, holden  at  Lambeth  Palace  in  July,  1888,"  pro- 
posing as  the  basis  of  Church  unity  "  the  Historic 
Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  methods  of  its  ad- 
ministration to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and 
peoples,"  etc.^ 

The  form  of  government  is,  of  course,  both  as  a; 
matter  of  fact  and  as  a  matter  of  principle  indifferent! 
to  the  faith :  every  variety  of  belief  found  among  Trini- 
tarian Protestants  is  harbored  under  the  form  of  Angli- 
can Episcopacy,  It  is  the  formal  nature  of  the  issue 
which  is  at  once  the  hope  and  the  despair  of  Christian 
unity :  so  trivial  a  difference !  yet  so  insuperable  a 
barrier !  The  forms  which  persist  in  spite  of  changed 
faiths,  persist  also  in  spite  of  a  change  in  spirit,  in  spite 
of  the  growth  of  charity,  and  sincere  zeal  for  union. 
The  form  persists  just  because  it  is  form,  and  as  such! 
stands  in  no  relation  to  the  spiritual  forces  which  oper-' 
ate  in  the  Church ;  it  persists  because  it  is  a  legal  fact, 
and  as  such  stands  in  irreconcilable  contradiction  to  the 
nature  of  the  Church,  —  here  not  in  the  familiar  con- 

^  See  note  A  at  the  end  of  this  section. 


4  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

trast  of  law  and  grace,  or  law  and  liberty,  but  of  law 
and  spirit. 

The  Church  depends  upon  essential  reality,  upon 
the  instant  and  constant  proclamation  of  God's  Word, 
God's  Will,  in  spirit  and  in  truth  :  law  on  the  other 
hand  depends  in  principle  upon  form  (hence  the  adage, 
summimi  jus  summa  injuria),  and  it  must  depend  upon 
form  if  it  would  free  itself  from  the  influences  of  the 
moment,  and  found  its  decisions  upon  established,  tra- 
ditional, and  generally  valid  principles.  A  particular 
form  of  the  ministry  is  established  by  law  in  every 
denomination.  That  it  is  in  a  measure  recognized  and 
protected  by  law  ivithout  the  Church  (Civil,  Common,  or 
Statute  Law)  is  of  little  importance  in  this  connection ; 
but  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the  form  of 
ministry  is  established  by  law  ivithiti  the  Church,  by 
ecclesiastical  law  (Canon  Law). 

Again,  force  is  implied  in  the  very  idea  of  law ; 
whereas  the  nature  of  the  Church  abhors  compulsion, 
because  only  the  free  apprehension  of  the  divine  is  of 
spiritual  value.  Faith,  and  all  that  belongs  to  the 
spiritual  sphere,  cannot  be  compelled ;  and  the  laws 
which  have  been  devised  for  coercion  have  proved  in 
the  main  as  futile  as  they  are  misdirected.  The  faith 
has  always  changed  before  the  terms  of  creed  subscrip- 
tion have  been  altered.  None  were  ever  more  confi- 
dently determined  to  enforce  faith  by  law  than  the 
Calvinistic  Churches  of  Great  Britain  and  America :  — 
with  a  result  which  deserves  to  be  remembered  as  a 
classical  instance  in  proof  of  my  contention.  The  form 
of  Church  government,  on  the  other  hand,  is  worldly, 
it  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  law ;  it  is  essentially,  as  it 
is  commonly  called,  a  polity,  and  as  such  it  can  be 
enforced. 


§  1]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  5 

A.  Local  adaptation  of  the  historic  episcopate  is  proposed  by 
the  so-called  Chicago-Lambeth  Quadrilateral.  How  much  this 
local  adccptation  may  mean,  we  may  get  a  notion  from  Bishop 
Gore,  the  most  noteworthy  of  the  modern  Anglican  expounders 
of  the  Catholic  doctrine  —  and  history  —  of  the  ministry.  In 
his  Christian  Ministry  (1889),  p.  143,  he  says,  of  the  presby- 
ters of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  in  the  second  and  third  cen- 
turies :  "  They  were  not  only  presbyters  with  the  ordinary 
commission  of  the  presbyter,  but  also  bishops  in  'posse."  That 
this  doctrinaire  theory  is  not  casually  developed  by  the  exi- 
gency of  controversy,  to  meet  a  pressing  objection,  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  on  p.  72  it  is  laid  down  as  a  general  principle, 
that  "  It  is  a  matter  of  very  great  importance  to  exalt  the  prin- 
ciple of  apostolic  succession  above  the  question  of  the  exact 
form  of  the  ministry,"  and  on  p.  73,  "No  one,  of  whatever 
part  of  the  Church,  can  maintain  that  what  may  be  called,  for 
lack  of  a  distinctive  term,  monejnscojjacy  is  essential  to  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  Church."  Here  at  last  a  theological  principle  is 
uppermost ;  for  the  apostolic  succession  is  one  way  of  account- 
ing for  and  justifying  the  divine  authority  of  the  ministry. 
Still  more  significant  are  the  later  utterances  of  another  high- 
churchman.  Dr.  John  Wordsworth,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  The 
Ministry  of  Grace  (1901).  In  relation  to  this  same  problem  of 
the  Alexandrian  episcopacy  in  the  third  century  he  observes 
(p.  125),  "that  in  two  of  the  greatest  Church  centres,  closely 
connected  with  one  another,  namely  Eome  and  Alexandria, 
episcopacy  did  not  grow  with  the  rapidity  which  marked  its 
progress  in  Palestine,  Syria,  and  Asia."  I  dissent  from  the 
statement  of  fact,  —  but  that  is  not  to  the  point  here.  On  p. 
128 :  "In  the  Church  Order  that  bears  the  name  of  Hippolytus, 
and  which  is  probably  Koman,  but  rather  before  his  time,  and 
may  be  dated  circa  a.  d.  200,  we  find  two  remarkable  rules : 
first,  that '  one  of  the  Bishops  and  Presbyters '  is  to  be  chosen 
to  say  the  prayer  and  to  lay  hands  upon  the  person  to  be  or- 
dained ;  and,  second,  that  the  same  prayer  is  to  be  used  both 
for  a  Bishop  and  a  Presbyter,  but  with  only  a  change  in  the 
title.  It  is  also  laid  down  (ch.  32)  *  that  a  Bishop  in  all  things 
is  to  be  considered  equal  to  a  Presbyter,  except  in  the  name  of 


6  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

the  throne  and  in  the  [matter  of]  ordination,  because  the  power 
of  ordination  is  not  given  to  him '  (i.  e.  to  the  Presbyter).  This 
looks  as  if  the  prerogatives  implied  by  the  two  titles  were  now 
being  distinguished  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  while  as  yet  this 
distinction  had  not  been  carried  very  far,  ...  It  is  not  clear 
whether  he  needed  a  further  ordination  if  he  were  already  a 
presbyter  of  the  Eoman  Church."  On  opp.  139  sq.  he  accepts 
the  common  reading  of  the  thirteenth  canon  of  Anc3'ra  (a.  d. 
314),  "  which  seems  to  recognize  a  certain  power  of  ordination 
in  City-presbyters,  bringing  it  into  line  with  Episcopal  supre- 
macy, without  actually  abolishing  it,  by  requiring  a  written 
licence  from  the  Bishop  before  its  exercise."  But  on  p.  141  he 
divests  this  of  its  historical  significance  by  positing  (like  Gore) 
the  theory  that  "  the  City-presbyters  at  Rome  and  Alexandria, 
and  very  probably  elsewhere,  were  members  of  an  Episcopal 
College,  acting  usually  through  their  president  in  the  matter  of 
ordination."  On  p.  142  he  sums  up  his  conclusions  in  part  as  fol- 
lows :  "  That  in  some  other  parts,  especially  at  Rome  and  Alex- 
andria, there  were  at  first  [that  is,  until  about  the  end  of  the 
second  century]  only  two  orders,  the  governing  order  acting  nor- 
mally as  a  corporate  body  or  College ;  that  in  process  of  time, 
and  more  particrdarly  in  the  course  of  the  third  century,  the 
governing  order  tended  more  and  more  to  act  through  its  Presi- 
dents ;  that  in  this  way  the  governing  order  in  the  West  has 
been  differentiated  into  two  degrees,  though  a  tradition  has 
always  been  kept  up  that  they  had  an  essential  imity  of  char- 
acter, now  defined  as  '  Priesthood '  or  *  sacerdotium.'  Not  only 
has  this  tradition  never  been  condemned  by  the  Church,  but  it 
is  probably  a  growing  belief;  and  it  has  much  to  recommend 
it  as  a  practical  basis  for  that  reunion  between  Episcopalians 
and  Presbyterians  which  is  one  of  the  most  obviously  necessary 
tasks  of  English-speaking  Christianity."  As  will  appear  subse- 
quently, I  differ  totally  from  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury  as  to  the 
inference  which  is  to  be  drawn  from  these  facts  concerning 
the  primitive  relation  of  bishops  and  presbyters.  He  follows 
approximately  St.  Jerome's  theory,  —  as  to  the  influence  and 
authority  of  which  see  note  B,  p.  23. 

It  is  germane,  however,  to  the  present  context  to  observe  that 


§1]        DENOMINATIONAL  CONTROVERSY         7 

the  opinion  of  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury  is  in  conformity  with  An- 
glican traditions.  The  prevailing  opinion  of  Anglican  theologians 
in  the  past  (there  is  no  Anglican  dogma  on  the  subject)  has  not 
been  opposed  to  the  so-called  Eoman  doctrine,  —  though  this 
is  now  commonly  affirmed.  It  was  a  long  time  before  the 
opinion  gained  ground  that  the  episcopate  is  an  order  distinct 
from  the  presbyterate.  This  notion  is  not  to  be  inferred  from 
the  Preface  to  the  English  Ordinal  (  "  that  from  the  Apostles' 
time  there  have  been  these  Orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ's 
Church,  —  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  "),  for  it  is  well  known 
that  the  word  ordo  was  loosely  used  even  at  the  end  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  and  the  word  occurs  more  than  once  in  relation 
to  bishops  in  Eoman  formularies.  It  would  indeed  have  been 
a  strange  thing  had  the  Anglican  Church  adopted  a  more  rigor- 
ous view  of  the  exclusive  powers  of  the  episcopate  than  the 
Eoman  had  ever  formulated.  We  have  also  to  recognize  the 
influence  of  St.  Jerome's  theory,  which  the  Puritan  controver- 
sialists did  not  suffer  the  Anglican  divines  to  forget,  —  if  they 
were  so  minded.  It  is  remarkable  how  often  the  citation 
occurs  "  as  Jerome  saith  in  his  epistle  to  Evagrius."  On  both 
sides  the  theory  was  accepted  as  an  axiom.  The  preponderat- 
ing —  well  nigh  imiversal  —  opinion  of  Anglican  divines  in  the 
first  age  of  the  English  Eeformation  was  in  agreement  with 
Jerome's  statement.  In  the  Institution  of  a  Christian  3Ian, 
put  forth  by  the  bishops  and  clergy  in  1537,  it  is  said  (speak- 
ing of  "  the  sacrament  of  orders  "  to  be  administered  by  the 
bishop,  and  noticing  the  various  orders  in  the  Church  of  Eome) : 
"  The  truth  is,  that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention 
made  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  of  dea- 
cons or  ministers,  and  of  priests  or  bishops ; "  and  throughout, 
when  speaking  of  the  jurisdiction  and  privileges  of  the  ministry, 
it  attributes  them  to  "priests  or  bishops,"  asserting  expressly 
"  that  this  office,  this  power  and  authority,  was  given  by  Christ 
unto  certain  persons  only,  that  is  to  say,  imto  priests  or  bishops." 
Again  in  the  revision  of  this  work  set  forth  by  the  king  in  1543 
under  the  title,  A  Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any 
Christian  Man,  priests  and  bishops  are  spoken  of  as  of  the 
same  order.     In  the  autumn  of  1540  certain  questions  were 


8  INTRODUCTION  [ I 

proposed  by  the  king  to  the  chief  bishops  and  divines  of  the 
day,  of  which  the  tenth  was  this  :  "  Whether  bishops  or  priests 
were  tirst  ?  and  if  the  priests  were  tirst,  then  the  priest  made 
the  bishop."  Cranmer  replied :  "  The  bishops  and  priests  were 
at  one  time,  and  were  not  two  things,  but  both  one  office,  in  the 
beginning  of  Christ's  religion."  Lee,  Archbishop  of  York,  said  : 
"  The  name  of  a  bishop  is  not  properly  a  name  of  order,  but  a 
name  of  office."  Bonner,  Bishop  of  London,  said,  referring  to 
Jerome :  "  In  the  beginning  of  the  Church  there  was  none  (or, 
if  it  were,  very  small)  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  priest, 
especially  touching  the  signification."  To  like  effect  answered 
Barlow,  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  Thirlby,  Bishop  elect  of  West- 
minster, and  a  number  of  notable  divines.  The  documents  are 
reported  in  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the  Church 
of  England.,  addendum  5  to  pt.  I.,  and,  among  the  Eecords  to 
pt.  I.  bk.  III.,  no.  21,  quest.  10.  In  Elizabeth's  reign  Dr.  Alley, 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  in  his  Prelections  on  1  Peter,  read  publicly 
in  St.  Paul's  in  the  year  1560,  quotes  Jerome  to  prove  the 
original  identity  of  presbyter  and  bishop.  So  also  does  Dr. 
Pilkington,  in  his  Confutation  of  an  Addition  ( Works,  p.  494, 
ed.  Parker  Soc).  Bishop  Jewell  was  the  one  who  best  of  all 
understood  the  Catholic  tradition,  and  in  his  Def.  of  ApoL,  pt. 
IL  c.  9,  div.  I.  (Works,  p.  202,  cf.  p.  85)  he  quotes  Chrysos- 
tom,  Jerome,  Augustine,  Ambrose  (Ambrosiaster),  and  St.  Paul 
in  support  of  the  position  "that  by  the  Scriptures  of  God  a 
bishop  and  a  priest  are  all  one."  Archbishop  Whitgift,  in  con- 
troversy with  Cartwright  (Def.  of  Answ.  to  Adm.,  1574,  p.  383), 
was  more  guarded  —  and  more  accurate :  "  Every  bishop  is  a 
priest,  but  every  priest  hath  not  the  name  and  title  of  a 
bishop,  in  that  meaning  that  Jerome  in  this  place  taketh  the 
name  of  a  bishop.  .  .  .  Neither  shall  you  find  this  word  episco- 
pus  commonly  used  but  for  that  priest  that  is  in  degree  over 
and  above  the  rest."  There  is  no  need  to  multiply  instances  of 
this  sort.  It  is  well  known  that  the  bishops  acted  upon  these 
principles  by  recognizing  the  presbyterian  ordination  of  min- 
isters who  came  from  the  Continent. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  is  that  the  Eoman  doctrine  is 
suhstantially  what  the  Anglican  has  been  assumed  to  be.     It  is 


§2]  LEGALIZED  CHRISTIANITY  9 

well  known  that  the  doctrine  of  the  sacrament  of  orders  was 
worked  up  by  the  Schoolmen.  The  tradition  forbade  them  to 
reckon  the  episcopate  as  a  special  order ;  but  they  strove  never- 
theless to  vindicate  to  it  a  higher  and  separate  position,  as  by 
Christ's  institution.  Duns  Scotus  taught  that  the  episcopal  ] 
consecration  constituted  a  separate  sacrament.  But  most  of 
the  theologians  justified  the  superior  power  of  the  bishop,  not 
on  sacramental  gi-ounds  {potestas  ordinis),  but  from  the  side  of 
jurisdiction  ( potcstas  jurisdictionis),  —  though,  according  to  the 
Catholic  view,  they  accounted  it  none  the  less  jure  divino  for 
this  distinction.  The  episcopate  now  coimts  in  the  Eoman 
Church  as  a  higher  degree  (gradus)  within  the  sacerdotium. 
It  is  not  strange  that  the  high-Anglican  divines  of  a  later  gen- 
eration than  those  quoted  above,  being  unable  to  avail  them- 
selves of  this  distinction,  because  the  potestas  jurisdictionis  had 
come  to  imply  (to  them)  a  potestas  jure  humano,  should  break 
with  the  tradition  (perhaps  more  or  less  unconsciously)  and 
assert  a  separate  order  of  the  episcopate.  This  is  undoubtedly 
what  is  now  commonly  meant  by  the  popular  "phrase  the 
threefold  ministry." 


§  2,   LEGALIZED   CHEISTIANITY 

But  no  satisfying  idea  of  the  Church  as  a  legally  con- 
stituted society  has  ever  been  formulated,  nor  ever  can 
be ;  for  a  legal  constitution  (whether  jure  humano  or 
jure  divino)  is  opposed  to  the  nature  of  the  Church.  It 
is  here  the  "  visible  Church  "  that  is  meant,  the  king- 
dom of  God,  which  "  is  not  of  this  world,"  and  never 
can  be  ruled  by  worldly  means  (by  a  polity  conformable 
to  the  kingdoms  of  this  world),  but  only  by  God's 
Spirit.  And  yet  the  one  point  upon  which  all  de- 
nominations of  Christians  are  united  (except  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends)  is  the  belief  that  some  form  or  another 
of  ecclesiastical  polity  (legally  constituted  organization) 
is  divinely  prescribed,  or  at  the  very  least  is  practically 


o 


10-  INTRODUCTION  [I 

necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  a  visible  Church  of 
.  Christ ;  and,  further,  that  some  legal  constitution  has 
from  the  beginning  been  in  force. 

The  assertions  which  I  make  in  this  section  I  do  not 
posit  as  assumptions,  for  I  cannot  presume  that  they 
will  be  granted  at  this  point :  I  state  them  as  the  thesis, 
of  which  this  whole  work  may  be  taken  as  the  proof. ^ 
But  here  it  may  well  be  pointed  out,  that  the  persis- 
tence of  Church  polities  since  the  Reformation  (in  the 
midst  of  so  many  and  such  great  changes),  and  the  mil- 
lennium long  endurance  of  the  Catholic  polity,  which 
has  no  historic  parallel  except  in  the  venerable  institu- 
tions of  the  Chinese  Empire,  render  it  well  nigh  incon- 
ceivable that  such  a  development  could  ever  have  been 
accomplished  as  we  assume  to  have  taken  place  almost 
without  contest  about  the  turn  of  the  second  century 
(in  the  rise  of  the  monarchical  episcopate),  or  such  as 
we  can  clearly  trace  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries 
(the  development  of  metropolitan  and  papal  authority) ; 
—  it  is  impossible,  I  say,  that  such  developments  could 
\  have  so  taken  place,  if  the  earlier  order  ivhieh  ivas  super- 
•seded  had  been  legally  established.  That  is  to  say :  if 
the  privileges  and  authority  which  were  enjoyed  by  a 
plurality  of  bishops  in  the  congregation  had  been  ac- 
counted theirs  by  right  (in  the  strict  sense  —  as  depend- 
ing upon  a  fact  in  the  past  which  was  uncontrollable  in 
the  present),  the  authority  of  the  single  bishop  could 
not  have  been  established,  or  at  least  not  without  a 
contest  which  would  have  left  imperishable  traces. 
Similarly,  if  the  equal  authority  in  the  Church  which 

^  I  have  here  tried  to  state  accurately  the  thesis  of  Sohm's  book,  to 
which  I  have  made  due  acknowledgment  in  the  Preface.  I  repeat  the 
hope  that,  if  anything  is  here  lacking  in  accuracy  of  statement  or  in 
cogency  of  proof,  Sohm's  work  may  be  consulted  for  correction  and 
supplement. 


§2]  LEGALIZED  CHRISTIANITY  11 

was  enjoyed  by  all  diocesan  bishops  in  the  third  cen- 
tury had  been  legally  secured  to  them,  —  that  is,  if 
the  Church  had  been  legally  organized,  as  the  dio- 
cese or  parish  already  was,  —  metropolitan,  patriarchal, 
or  papal  authority  could  not  have  been  successfully 
asserted.  The  legal  organization  of  the  Church  de- 
veloped gradually :  it  first  laid  hold  of  the  local  com- 
munity, then  of  the  province,  then  of  the  Church,  the 
end  and  aim  of  the  Catholic  development  being  attained 
in  the  Papacy. 

In  the  subjection  of  the  Christian  society  to  the 
terms  of  a  legal  constitution,  Sohm  sees  the  essence 
of  Catholicism.  This  principle  reaches  much  further 
than  the  province  of  Canon  Law,  to  which  Sohm 
directly  applies  it :  if  it  is  accepted,  it  involves  a  fun- 
damental reconstruction  of  the  modern  view  of  early 
Church  history,  —  particularly  with  regard  to  the  prob- 
lem which  confronts  us  in  the  passage  from  primitive 
Christianity  to  Early  Catholicism.^  Without  denying 
the  influence  of  Greek  thought  upon  the  Church  (and 
even  upon  St.  Paul),  the  fact  must  to  many  appear 
inadequate  as  a  solution  for  the  problem  we  have  to 
meet.  Some  are  dissatisfied  with  this  solution  because 
they  recognize  that  the  development  of  the  Church, 
even  in  departing  from  primitive  ideals,  was  a  unique 
fact,  a  free  creation  of  the  Christian  faith,  fundamen- 

2  This  problem,  it  is  well  known,  was  first  clearly  recognized  by 
F.  Clir.  Baur,  though  his  solution  was  inadequate  :  —  "  Catholicism  is 
the  synthesis  of  Judaistic  and  Pauline  Christianity."  Albrecht  Ritschl, 
Die  Enstehung  der  aUkatholischen  Kirche,  2nd  ed.  1857,  proposed  another 
solution,  which  has  had  ever  since  a  controlling  influence  upon  the  study 
of  early  Church  history,  aiid  is  now  accepted  by  most  of  those  who  do 
not  ignore  the  problem :  — "  Catholicism  is  Christianity  (particularly 
Pauline  Christianity)  Hellenized."  Renan  (particularly  Les  Apotres,  and 
UEglise  chretienne)  was  the  first  to  emphasize  the  influence  of  the  models 
of  secular  governmeut  upon  the  organization  of  the  Church. 


12  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

tally  determined  by  motives  inherent  in  Christianity. 
I  Sohm,  while  he  sees  in  the  legalizing  of  Christian  insti- 
tutions a  radical  departure  from  primitive  ideals,  which 
'he  attributes  to  want  of  faith  in  the  guidance  of  the 
I  Spirit,  recognizes  at  the  same  time  that  the  character 
'of  legalized  (Catholic)  Christianity  was  conditioned  es- 
sentially by  the  primitive  conception  of  the  nature  of 
the  Church.  The  legal  constitution  of  the  Church  must 
assume  monarchical  form  ;  because  from  the  beginning 
the  Church  was  ruled  by  Christ's  Spirit,  by  Christ's 
Word,  through  the  men  whom  he  had  charismatically 
endowed  to  speak  in  his  stead.  That  is  to  say,  the 
officers  of  the  Church  are  the  representatives  of  Christ 
(God),  not  the  representatives  of  the  congregation. 
Thus  also,  ecclesiastical  law  —  if  law  there  be  —  can 
only  be  regarded  as  an  authority  jure  divino,  because 
no  other  law  is  of  force  in  the  Church  but  God's  law. 
Again,  and  partly  as  a  deduction  from  the  above,  all 
law  in  the  Church  is  Church  law,  ecclesiastical  law, 
valid  not  merely  for  a  local  community  (be  it  congre- 
gation, city,  or  province),  but  for  the  Church  universal ; 
because  the  idea  of  a  separately  organized  local  com- 
munity was  not  contemplated  by  primitive  Christianity. 
Hence  the  Catholic  stress  upon  uniformity  was  in  har- 
mony with  primitive  ideals :  the  primitive  Church  was 
intolerant. 

It  will  be  recognized  how  far-reaching  were  the  re- 
ligious effects  of  this  legalizing  of  Christianity  when 
one  reflects  upon  the  profound  questions  Avhich  therein 
received  an  answer.  This  is  forcibly  presented  by  Sohm: 
"  A  spiritual  conception  dominates  in  Church  history, 
the  conception  of  the  visible  Church,  a  conception 
which  is  determined  by  the  content  of  the  Christian 
faith.     Where  is  Christ,  the  Lord   of  Glory  ?     Where 


§2]  LEGALIZED   CHRISTIANITY  13 

the  people  of  Christ  (the  Ecclesia),  in  whose  midst 
Christ  is  with  all  his  spiritual  gifts  ?  Where  is  the  vis- 
ible Church  ?  where  the  true  Christianity  ?  "  ^  All  turns 
upon  the  answer  to  this  question.  The  answer  which 
maintained  its  credit  unquestioned  throughout  the  first 
century  is  that  which  is  recorded  in  the  Gospel  (Matt. 
18  :  20),  "  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in 
my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them."  Catholi- 
cism defined :  Where  the  bishop  is  (with  the  presbyters 
and  deacons),  there  is  the  Catholic  Church,  there  is  thej 
Spirit  of  Christ  and  all  his  benefits,  —  and  there  only). 
The  whole  development  of  Catholicism  lies  implicit  in 
that  answer,  —  substantially  the  answer  of  Ignatius. 
It  remained  yet  to  be  defined.  Who  is  the  bishop  ?  It  is 
he  who  is  rite  (legally)  constituted ;  that  is,  elected,  ac- 
cepted, ordained,  and  inducted  as  the  law  prescribes. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  sacraments,  and  all  other 
spiritual  possessions  of  the  Church,  were  legalized  by 
this  process.  That  is  a  valid  sacrament  which  is  ad- 
ministered rite  (according  to  legally  ordained  form)  by 
one  who  is  legally  (rite)  appointed  to  that  ministry,  — 
all  others  are  void  of  spiritual  effect."*  Even  the  truth 
was  legalized ;  indeed  it  was  primarily  for  the  sake  of  an 
objective  criterion  of  truth  that  the  legal  constitution 
was  established.  At  each  stage  of  the  development,  as 
the  legal  organization  extended  from  the  local  com- 
munity to  the  universal  Church,  the  answer  sounded : 
The  truth  is  what  the  bishop  teaches  —  what  is  defined 

3  Sohm,  p.  X. 

*  According  to  medieval  doctrine,  by  one  who  has  himself  validly 
received  another  sacrament;  namely,  that  of  sacerdotal  order.  To  the 
strict  consequences  of  this  position  baptism  was  later  made  an  exception. 
The  distinction  between  that  which  is  invalid,  and  that  which  is  merely 
irregular,  according  to  the  phrase,  factum  valet,  fieri  non  debet,  was  foreign 
to  early  Catholicism. 


14  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

by  the  council, "  legitime  {!)congregata  in  Spirito  Sancto  " 
—  what  is  enunciated  by  the  pope.  And,  after  all,  this 
authorized  Christianity  had  only  a  negative  value.  The 
Catholic  Church  can  assert  —  is  authorized  on  Catholic 
principles  in  asserting  —  that  there  is  no  salvation  out- 
side of  it;  but  it  cannot,  on  formal  juristic  grounds, 
assure  any  individual  that  he  is  saved  within  it.^ 


§  3,  CATHOLIC   DEVELOPMENT   WITHOUT   CONTRO- 

VERSY 

It  is  a  remarkable  and  a  significant  fact  that  in  the 
early  Church,  notwithstanding  the  critical  changes  that 
were  effected,  and  the  vast  development  of  ecclesiastical 
organization,  there  was  no  controversy  about  the  form 
of  the  ministry,  —  none  at  least  which  was  important 
enough  to  leave  definite  traces  upon  the  literature.  It 
is  this  which  makes  our  study  of  these  changes  so  diffi- 
cult. All  seems  to  come  about  naturally,  spontaneously, 
in  response  to  forces  which  operated  unchallenged.  The 
first  step  was  taken  in  view  of  what  appeared  to  be  an 
imperative  practical  necessity  :  —  the  preservation  of  the 
pure  Gospel  in  the  face  of  Gnosticism.  Each  succeed- 
ing step  was  prescribed  by  a  logical  necessity  which  was 
no  less  imperative. 

In  St.  Clement's  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  we  do,  in- 
deed, get  a  hint  of  ''  strife  over  the  name  of  the  bishop's 
office"  (c.  xliv.);  but  the  question  at  issue  was  merely, 
who  should  actually  enjoy  the  privileges  of  the  office. 

5  It  is  to  be  noted,  that,  except  in  the  Western  Church,  the  Catholic 
organization  was  arrested  before  it  was  complete  :  the  Eastern  churches 
are  left  without  an  ultimate,  decisive  answer,  expressed  in  legal  terms, 
to  the  question,  Where  is  the  Spirit  of  Christ  ?  where  is  the  people  of 
God  ?    what  is  the  truth  ? 


§  3]  CATHOLIC   DEVELOPMENT  15 

Even  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  not  to  be  considered  a 
propaganda  for  the  establishment  of  a  particular  form  of 
government,  the  monarchical  episcopate :  this  they  as- 
sume as  already  universally  established,  and  they  press 
the  consequences.  We  may  presume  that  Ignatius  did 
not  succeed  in  carrying  through  without  contradiction  his 
new  interpretation  ^  of  the  evangelical  maxim,  uhi  tres, 
ibi  ecclesia  ;  but  we  do  not  hear  the  question  raised  con- 
troversially until  we  come  to  Tertullian  the  Montanist.'^ 
Hermas  hints  at  a  contest  over  '^  the  chief  seats  "  (rights 
of  the  presbyters) ;  and  he  reveals  his  personal  dissatis- 
faction with  the  position  to  which  the  prophets  (himself 
being  one)  were  already  reduced  in  the  Roman  Church. 
But  there  was  no  serious  controversy  about  the  prin- 
ciple of  prophetic  rule  in  the  Church  until  towards  the 
end  of  the  century,  in  the  Montanistic  movement ;  and 
by  that  time  it  already  belonged  to  an  order  of  things 
which  in  most  communities  had  definitely  passed  away. 
In  this  controversy  the  Catholics  did  not  attempt  to 
traverse  the  principle  of  prophetic  authority ;  they  de- 
nied, as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  possession  of  this  gift  by 
the  Montanist  leaders.  A  kindred  spirit  of  revolt 
against  the  Catholic  externalizing  of  the  idea  of  the 
Church  made  itself  felt  from  time  to  time  during  the 
next  three  centuries,  but  it  had  even  less  to  do  with 
the  form  of  Church  organization.  This  movement  has 
often  been  compared  with  English  Puritanism,  and  it  is 
therefore  all  the  more  significant  to  observe  that  it  was 
a  puritanism  without  any  complaint  against  Catholic 
organization.  Novatian,  who  had  got  himself  conse- 
crated at  Rome  as  anti-bishop  to  Cornelius,  was  scrupu- 
lous to  secure  an  ordination  according  to  the  Catholic 
rule.     One  of  the  results  which  emerged  almost  unno- 

^  Smyrn.  8 :  10.  ^  De  exhort,  castit.  7. 


16  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

ticed  from  this  schism  was  the  settlement  of  the  prin- 
ciple that  there  can  be  but  one  bishop  in  a  city.  The 
Donatists,  as  is  well  known,  retained  the  Catholic 
organization. 

The  development  of  metropolitan  authority  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  fourth  century  surely  did  not  come 
about  without  question ;  but  such  controversy  as  there 
was  must  have  been  individual,  and  we  know  nothing 
about  it  beyond  the  uncertain  implications  of  a  short 
notice  in  Eusebius.'  As  for  the  arrogant  claims  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  —  he  could  hardly  boast  anything 
which  his  compeers  were  not  as  ready  to  concede.* 

Finally,  to  the  absence  of  controversy  here  noted, 
St.  Jerome  is  no  exception ;  his  famous  dictum,  that 
"  among  the  ancients  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the 
same,  for  the  one  is  a  term  of  dignity,  the  other  of 
age,"  was  not  made  as  a  ''  challenge  "  ^  neither  was  it 

8  Euseb.  //.  E.  VIII.  1:7,8. 

*  Irenaeus,  adv.  Haer.  3  :  3,  The  Roman  Church  is  maxima  et  anti- 
quissima,  a  gloriosissimis  duobus  apostoHs  constituta.  Ad  banc  enim 
ecclesiam  propter  potentiorem  principatem  necesse  est  omnem  convenire 
ecclesiam,  hoc  est  eos,  qui  sunt  undique  fideles,  in  qua  semper  ab  his, 
qui  sunt  undique,  consei'vata  est,  ea  quae  est  ab  apostolis  traditio.  Like 
most  modern  interpreters,  I  suppose  Irenaeus  to  be  here  stating  merely 
the  fact  about  Rome's  civic  position  as  the  centre  of  the  Empire,  and 
drawing  pragmatic  inferences  from  it;  —  not  stating  a  doctrinal  thesis. 
It  was  the  civic  principatus  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  its  consequent 
representative  character,  which  gave  it  religious  preeminence  in  all  doctrinal 
issues.  Stronger  are  the  expressions  of  Cyprian  (ep.  38  :  3),  who  calls 
the  Roman  Church  ecclesiae  catholicae  matrix  et  radix ;  and  (ep,  59  :  14), 
ad  Petri  cathedram  atque  ad  ecclesiam  principalem,  unde  unitas  sacerdo- 
talis  exorta  est.  The  protest  of  Tertullian  as  a  Montanist  (de  pudic.  1) 
is  chiefly  significant  as  indicating  the  height  of  the  Roman  pretention : 
audio  enim,  ediclum  esse  propositum  .  .  .  pontifex  scilicet  maximus, 
episcopus  episcoporum  e(/iCi7, — that  is  Callistus.  Cf.  also  Cyprian  him- 
self in  controversy  with  the  Roman  Bishop  Stephen  (Cypr.  ep.  71),  and 
Firmilian  of  Caesarea  (Cypr.  ep.  75),  who  speaks  of  the  audacia  et  inso- 
lentia,  the  aperta  et  manifesta  Stephani  audacia. 

s  As  it  is  still  called  by  Allen,  Christian  Institiiiions,  p.  7,  where  he 


§  3]  CATHOLIC   DEVELOPMENT  17 

controversial  in  the  sense  ordinarily  supposed.  St. 
Jerome  writes  as  a  biblical  student  and  commentator, 
bringing  to  the  notice  of  his  age  an  exegetical  fact 
which  had  hitherto  been  overlooked,  —  except  by  the 
anonymous  commentator  on  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  com- 
monly called  Ambrosiaster  or  the  Ambrosian  Hilary,*^ 
We  are  fortunately  left  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  exact 
measure  of  authority  we  must  ascribe  to  this  opinion. 
If  St.  Jerome  had  stated  it  without  citing  his  proofs  it 
would  have  been  immeasurably  more  imposing,  for 
it  would  have  at  least  the  presumptive  authority  of 
tradition.  But  he  cites  his  proofs  in  full,  and  they 
turn  out  to  be  exclusively  Scriptural  proofs;'^  so  that 
we  have  here  to  consider  Jerome  simply  as  an  inter- 
preter ;  his  opinion  has  merely  exegetical  authority,  — 
that  is  to  say,  no  independent  authority  at  all.^  We  can 
easily  distinguish  between  the  fact  which  he  observes, 
(namely,  the  apparently  indiscriminate  use  of  the  terms 
bishop  and  presbyter  in  the  Acts  and  the  Pastoral  Epis- 
tles) ;  and  the  theory  he  founds  upon  it,  —  to  the  effect 
that  the  Church  was  originally  governed  by  a  college  of 
elders,  until  by  a  universal  decree  one  of  the  number  was 
elected  and  placed  over  the  rest  as  a  remedy  for  schism.^ 

says  also :  "  It  was  St.  Jerome  who  first  questioned  the  divine  right  of 
that  form  of  church  government  known  as  episcopacy." 

'  Ad  Ephes.  6  :  11.  "But,"  as  Lightfoot  remarks,  "he  is  hardly 
consistent  with  himself.  On  Tim.  3  :  8  he  recognizes  the  identity  less 
distinctly  ;  on  Phil.  1 : 1  he  ignores  it ;  while  on  Tit.  1  :  7  he  passes  over 
the  subject  without  a  word." 

T  Cf.  n.  16. 

^  For  modern  interpretations  of  these  Scriptural  passages,  see  p.  96  n. 

^  Ad.  Tit.  1.  Idem  est  ergo  presbyter  et  episcopus,  et  antequam  dia- 
boli  instinctu  studia  in  religione  fierent,  et  diceretur  in  populis :  '  Ego 
sum  Pauli,  ego  Apollo,  ego  autem  Cephae,'  communi  presbyterorum  con- 
silio  ecclesiae  gubernabantur.  Postquam  autem  unus  quisque  eos,  quos 
baptizaverat,  suos  putabat  esse,  non  Christi,  in  toto  orbe  decretum  est,  ut 
unus  de  presbyteris  electus  superponeretur  ceteris,  ad  quern  omnis  eccle- 

2 


18  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

How  mucli  truth  there  is  in  this  theory  it  is  not  here  in 
place  to  consider ;  it  is  sufficient  to  reveal  the  fact  that 
we  are  not  tied  to  its  authority. 

Novel  as  this  theory  undoubtedly  was  to  Jerome's 
contemporaries,  it  had  much  to  recommend  it  to  their 
favor :  far  from  being  in  conflict  with  the  hierarchical 
views  of  the  fifth  century,  it  fell  in  aptly  with  a  trend 
of  the  time,  and  furnished  a  happy  justification  of  it. 
St.  Jerome  himself,  as  a  presbyter,  had  evidently  a  per- 
sonal satisfaction  in  his  discovery :  it  bears,  he  thinks, 
against  the  arrogance  of  bishops  and  deacons.  The  po- 
sition of  the  presbyters  in  relation  to  the  bishop  and 
deacons  had  for  a  long  time  been  an  anomalous  one. 
From  the  beginning  the  title  was  one  of  great  honor, 
but  it  was  not  till  the  early  years  of  the  second  century 
that  it  indicated  definite  appointment  and  ordination  to 
office  (see  §  23).  Bishops  and  deacons,  on  the  other  hand, 
were  primitive  officers,  and  they  had  the  whole  execu- 
tive administration  of  Church  affairs  in  their  hands. 
In  Kome  particularly,  the  power  and  importance  of  the 
presbyters  had  a  rapid  development.  As  early  at  least 
as  the  third  century  they  had  the  management  of  the 

siae  cura  pertineret,  ut  schismaium  semina  tollerentur.  .  .  .  Haec  propterea, 
ut  ostenderemus,  apud  veteres  eosdem  fuisse  presbyteros  quos  episcopos, 
paulatim  vero,  ut  dissensioniim  plantaria  avelerentur,  ad  unum  omnem 
sollicitudinem  esse  delatam.  Sicut  ergo  presbyteri  sciunt,  se  ex  ecclesiae 
consuetudine  ei,  qui  sibi  praepositus  fuerit,  esse  subjectos,  ita  episcopi 
noverint,  se  magis  consuetudine  quara  dispositionis  Domenicae  veritate  pres- 
byteris  esse  maiores,  et  in  commune  debere  ecclesiam  regere,  imitantes 
Moysen,  qui  cum  haberet  in  potestate  solus  praeesse  populo  Israel,  septua- 
ginta  elegit,  cum  quibus  populum  iudicaret.  He  quotes  in  proof  Phil. 
1:1;  Acts  20:28;  Heb.  13:17;  1  Peter  5  : 1 ;  — and  in  his  letter  to 
Evangelus  he  quotes  in  addition  Tit.  1:5,  7;  1  Tim.  4:14;  2  John  1; 
and  3  John  1.  In  the  passage  I  have  quoted  above  it  may  be  seen  how 
uncertain  was  St.  Jerome's  conception  of  the  transaction  which  he  pos- 
tulates :  the  idea  of  a  gradual  development  (paulatim)  does  not  agree  at 
all  with  the  notion  of  a  universal  decree. 


§  3]  CATHOLIC  DEVELOPMENT  19 

titular  churches  and  the  suburban  cemeteries  which 
were  attached  to  them.^°  But  it  was  particularly  at 
Rome,  too,  that  the  deacons'  importance  was  extraordi- 
narily increased  by  reason  of  the  tradition  which  artifi- 
cially limited  their  number  to  seven.  To  this  small 
number  (later  supplemented  by  seven  subdeacons)  was 
committed  the  great  charge  of  administering  the  chari- 
ties of  the  Church,  and  their  close  relations  with  the 
bishop  gave  them  a  preeminence  which  is  strikingly 
exhibited  in  the  fact  that  for  a  while  the  pope  was 
ordinarily  chosen  from  their  ranks. 

In  this  state  of  affairs  it  is  not  strange  that  there 
should  be  contention  about  the  relative  dignity  of  dea- 
con and  presbyter.  Each  side  had  some  justification 
for  its  claim.  The  ancient  custom  of  the  Church  did 
indeed  allot  to  the  presbyter  a  place  of  superior  dignity 
at  the  Eucharist ;  but  there  must  have  been  many  other 
occasions  for  which  no  precedent  prescribed. 

The  presbyter's  superiority  was  settled  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nicaea.  By  that  time  the  presbyterate  had 
completed  another  stadium  of  its  development,  be- 
ing organized  as  a  collegial  presbytery  —  a  body  which 
included,  however,  the  deacons  and  even  suffragan 
bishops.  This,  as  the  sole  surviving  surrogate  for 
popular  representation,  constituted  the  official  council 
of  the  bishop.  The  Roman  college  of  cardinals  is  to- 
day the  only  survival  of  this  early  (third  century) 
presbytery. 

This  development  was  already  practically  complete 
before  St.  Jerome's  time,  but  a  theoretical  justification 
of  it  from  Scripture  was  none  the  less  welcome.  St. 
Jerome's  statement  was  in  fact  a  justification  of  the 
existing  order,  and  not  an  arraignment  of  it,  —  though 

"  See  my  Monuments  of  the  Early  Church,  1901,  pp.  37  sq. 


20  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

the  ideal  order  which  he  discovered  '•'  araong  the  an- 
cients "  allotted  to  the  presbyter  an  even  greater  dignity 
than  he  actually  enjoyed  in  Jerome's  time.  We  can 
easily  see,  therefore,  why  it  was  so  readily  accepted. 
"  Of  his  contemporaries  and  successors,  Chrysostom, 
Pelagius,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Theodoret,  all  ac- 
knowledge it.  Thus  in  every  one  of  the  extent  com- 
mentaries on  the  epistles  containing  the  crucial  passages, 
whether  in  Greek  or  Latin,  before  the  close  of  the  fifth 
century,  this  identity  [of  bishop  and  presbyter]  is  af- 
firmed. In  the  succeeding  ages  bishops  and  popes 
accept  the  verdict  of  St.  Jerome  without  question. 
Even  late  in  the  mediaeval  period,  and  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  reformation,  the  justice  of  his  criticism  or 
the  sanction  of  his  name  carries  the  general  suffrage  of 
theoloo-ians."  "  That  St.  Jerome's  dictum  was  not  meant 
as  a  challenge  of  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy,  is  suffi- 
ciently proved  by  its  universal  reception.^^  If  to  the 
Protestant  mind  this  seems  impossible,  it  is  only  be- 
cause our  modern  notions  have  created  a  breadth  of  dis- 
tinction between  ecclesiastical  custom  {"  consuetudine") 
and  direct  institution  by  Christ  {'^  dispositionis  Domeni- 
cae  veritate")  which  was  foreign  to  St.  Jerome  and  his 
contemporaries.  A  distinction  there  undoubtedly  was, 
and  St.  Jerome  takes  pains  to  express  it  in  the  strong- 
est phrase  possible ;  but  it  was  not  of  a  sort  to  invali- 
date the  jure  divino  authority  of  the  former. 

That  St.  Jerome  regarded  the  superiority  of  the 
bishop  as  authoritatively  established,  we  see  from  his 
statement  that  "  it  was  decreed  throughout  the  whole 
world."  Rothe  supposes  that  this  was  done  by  a  council 
of  the  Apostles  (about  a.  d.  70).     This  is  very  likely  St. 

^1  Lightfoot,  Com.  on  Phil.  p.  99,  —  cf.  n.  3  on  same  p.  for  references. 
^^  It  was  inserted  in  the  Corpus  Juris :  Deer,  pars  1.  dist.  95,  c.  5. 


§  3]  CATHOLIC   DEVELOPMENT  21 

Jerome's  meaning,  for  in  referring  to  the  "  schisms " 
which  led  to  the  centrahzation  of  government  in  the 
hands  of  one  person,  he  evidently  has  in  mind  the 
situation  at  Corinth  as  revealed  by  St.  Paul's  first 
Epistle,  —  particularly  cap.  1 :  11-15.  At  the  very  least 
he  must  have  fancied  an  early  council  of  ecumenical 
authority,  such  as  the  Church  of  his  own  day  had  be- 
come accustomed  to.  St.  Jerome  sought  to  reduce  to  a 
minimum  the  difference  between  the  power  of  the  pres- 
byter and  that  of  the  bishop,  but  in  the  matter  of  ordi- 
nation he  saw  an  irreducible  minimum. 

Consonant  as  St.  Jerome's  view  is  with  the  later 
Roman  dogma  which  asserts  the  unity  of  the  sacerdotal 
order  (including  both  bishops  and  presbyters),  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  had  any  practical  influence 
upon  the  development.  This  was  determined  by  more 
potent  factors,  and  again  St.  Jerome's  view  simply  fell 
in  with  a  trend  of  the  time.  In  the  second  and  third 
centuries  the  sacerdotal  title  was  ascribed  especially  to 
the  bishop,  and  this  early  parlance  still  commonly  sur- 
vived in  Jerome's  time.  The  priestly  name  and  oflice 
came  to  be  more  and  more  exclusively  associated  with 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist,  —  at  least  from  the  time 
of  Cyprian,  who  stated  this  doctrine  in  strong  terms. 
The  bishop  originally  owed  his  eminence  in  the  Church, 
and  later  his  sacerdotal  title,  to  his  authority  over  the 
Eucharist  (see  §  21).  The  same  title,  and  something  of 
the  same  dignity,  accrued  to  the  presbyters,  when  in 
the  course  of  the  third  century,  with  the  developed 
importance  of  the  parochial  organization  (the  titles), 
they  attained  an  independent  right  to  administer  this 
sacrament.  They,  too,  were  priests ;  for  the  sacrifice 
par  excellence  was  the  offering  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  and  priesthood  was  the  power  to  offer  this  sacri- 


\^^' 


22  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

fice.*^  Later  than  St.  Jerome's  day  the  bishop  acquired 
a  certain  separateness  of  character  through  the  notion 
which  identified  apostolic  succession  witli  tactual  trans- 
mission in  ordination.  But  this  separateness  was  more 
than  offset  by  the  importance  of  the  priesthood  which 
bishop  and  presbyter  shared  in  common.  The  medieval 
doctrine  which  made  the  poioer  to  perfect  this  sacrifice 
(effect  transubstantiation)  depend  upon  the  '  character  ' 
acquired  in  ordination  {potestas  ordinis),  compelled  the 
I'  recognition  of  a  single  order  of  the  saeerdotium.     This 

doctrine  therefore  is  not  a  survival  indicatino;  an  orio-inal 
identity  of  presbyter  and  bishop,  but  is  an  independent 
development  along  the  line  of  Catholic  principles. 

We  have  already  seen  how  much  importance  was 
attached  to  St.  Jerome's  view  after  the  Reformation : 
his  authority  has  continued  down  to  our  own  day  to 
dominate  the  study  of  the  ministry.  The  exegetical 
point  that  Jerome  raises  is  crucial  for  the  understanding 
of  early  Church  organization,  and  the  chief  service  of 
Hatch's  work  was  to  break  the  force  of  this  theory  of 
the  original  identity  of  bishop  and  presbyter.  Apart 
even  from  this  point,  it  is  worth  while  to  devote  so 
much  space  to  St.  Jerome's  view,  because  it  raises  some 
of  the  most  important  questions  which  meet  us  in  this 
study,  being  formulated  at  a  time  when  primitive  no- 
tions of  the  Church  and  the  ministry  were  passing  away, 
to  give  place  to  the  medieval  notions  which  are  still 
dominant  among  Protestants  as  well  as  Catholics.  It  is 
significant  that  (except  for  the  case  of  Alexandria  — 
see  note  below)  Jerome  cites  no  tradition  in  proof  of 

^8  Ambrosiaster  on  1  Tim.  3  :  8.  Post  episcopum  tameu  diaconi  ordi- 
uatio  subiicit.  Quare?  nisi  quia  episcopi  et  presbyteri  una  ordinatio 
est?  Uterque  enim  sacerdos  est,  sed  episcopus  primus  est;  ut  omnis 
episcopus  presbyter  sit,  non  omnis  presbyter  episcopus.  This,  like 
St.  Jerome's  view,  is  evidently  a  mere  exegetical  theory. 


§  3]  CATHOLIC   DEVELOPMENT  23 

his  theory :  there  was  in  fact  no  tradition  in  favor  of 
it,  and  the  theory  has  obscured  for  us  the  scanty  tradi- 
tions of  authentic  history  which  remain. 


B.  In  the  letter  to  Evangelus  St.  Jerome  adduces  the  only 
traditional  corroboration  of  his  theory  which  he  knows.  Nam 
Alexandriae  a  Marco  Evangelisto  usque  ad  Heraclam  et  Dio- 
nysium  episcopos  presbyteri  semper  unum  ex  se  electum  in 
excelsiori  gradu  collocatum  episcopum  nominabant,  quomodo 
si  exercitus  imperatorem  faciat,  aut  diaconi  eligant  de  se  quern 
industrium  noverint  et  archidiaconum  vocent.  Quid  enim  facit 
excepta  ordinatione  episcopus,  quod  presbyter  non  faciat  ?  The 
inference  from  this  would  seem  to  be  that  the  bishop  is  included 
in  the  presbytery.  A  little  later  he  notices  the  fact  that  St.  Paul, 
in  his  injunctions  to  Timothy  and  Titus  about  the  ordination  of 
bishops  and  deacons,  omits  the  mention  of  the  presbyter  alto- 
gether ;  and  the  explanation  is, "  because  in  the  bishop  the  pres- 
byter, too,  is  included." 

As  throwing  light  upon  St.  Jerome's  view,  it  is  interesting  to 
remark  that  he  here  supposes  a  single  officer  with  the  name  and 
rank  of  a  bishop  to  have  existed  in  the  Alexandrian  Church 
from  the  time  of  the  Evangelist  Mark,  and  that  until  the  mid- 
dle of  the  third  century  the  presbyters  of  that  city  enjoyed  the 
peculiar  privilege  of  "naming"  one  of  their  own  number  as 
bishop.  St.  Jerome  knew  Alexandria,  and  it  may  be  presumed 
that  he  was  familiar  with  its  traditions.  But  from  this  brief 
mention  no  very  clear  deductions  can  be  drawn,  beyond  the 
general  purpose  which  Jerome  has  in  mind,  i.  e.  of  proving  that 
presbyters  were  originally  hardly  inferior  to  bishops.  The  lan- 
guage of  St.  Jerome  is  commonly  understood  to  mean  that  the 
bishop  was  appointed  as  president  of  the  presbytery  without 
ordination,  for  his  explicit  reservation  to  the  bishop  of  the 
power  to  ordain  excludes  the  thought  of  ordination  by  the 
presbytery.  Ignoring  this  discrepancy,  Eitschl  {Entstehung, 
p.  429)  and  Lightfoot  {Com.  on  Phil.  p.  231)  understand  him  to 
mean  that  the  Alexandrian  presbyters  ordained  their  bishop. 
Hatch,  on  the  other  hand,  supposes  that  he  had  simply  to  be 


24  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

enthroned  {Organization,  p.  134).  Gore  {Ministry,  pp.  138  sq.) 
combats  Jerome's  evidence  in  toto,  but  in  order  "  to  face  the 
possibility  of  its  being  true  "  (in  Hatch's  sense)  he  posits  the 
theory  that  the  Alexandrian  presbyters  were  all  "  bishops  in 
posse."  Fortified  by  this  hypothesis,  Wordsworth  (^Ministry, 
pp.  135  sq.)  eagerly  accepts  the  notion  that  both  at  Eome 
and  at  Alexandria  "  the  Presbyterate  had  something  of  the 
character  of  an  episcopal  college,"  —  cf.  above,  note  A. 

Great  as  are  the  diversities  of  opinion,  it  is  possible  to  deter- 
mine the  actual  state  of  the  case  at  Alexandria  with  all  rea- 
sonable assurance.  St.  Jerome's  own  view  may  be  a  matter  of 
doubt,  and  at  all  events  it  is  of  no  great  importance  ;  but  it  is 
decisive  that  both  he  and  Ambrosiaster  assert  the  exclusive 
right  of  bishops  to  ordain,  expressly  denying  it  to  the  presbyter 
as  the  one  episcopal  function  which  he  may  not  share.  It  is 
true  that  we  have  sufficient  historical  evidence  of  ordination 
by  presbyters  :  it  was  apparently  the  rule  till  late  in  the  second  "^ 
century  for  city  presbyters  to  ordain  their  own  bishops.  But 
this  is  just  what  it  was  impossible  for  Jerome  to  believe.  His 
notion  of  legitimate  ordination  was  ruled  by  the  maxim  which 
Ambrosiaster  expresses,  nemo  enim  trihuit  quod  non  accepit. 
Therefore,  what  he  learned  about  the  peculiarity  of  the  situa-  . 
tion  in  Alexandria,  he  interpreted  as  a  mere  appointment  of  one 
of  their  number  by  a  college  of  presbyter-bishops  of  the  (as- 
sumed) Scriptural  type.  But  is  it  possible  for  us  to  believe  that  ? 
If  the  bishop  of  Alexandria  (in  the  third  century  or  even  in  the 
second)  was  established  in  his  office  without  other  ordination 
than  that  he  had  received  as  presbyter,  it  is  the  only  case 
recorded  in  history,  —  as  for  Ambrosiaster's  theory,  see  above, 
note  13. 

I  dissent  from  Hatch's  opinion  (^Organization,  p.  134)  "  that 
the  rite  (of  imposition  of  hands)  was  not  universal."  Even  if 
this  were  true,  however,  what  follows  is  a  non  seqttitur  :  "  it  is 
impossible  that,  if  it  was  not  universal,  it  could  have  been  re- 
garded as  essential."  To  disprove  the  universality  of  ordination 
he  gives  two  instances  in  addition  to  Jerome's  story.  I  shall 
not  stop  to  argue  about  "  the  fact  that  the  passage  in  the  Apos- 
tolical Constitutions  which  describes  with  elaborate  minuteness 


§3]  CATHOLIC  DEVELOPMENT  25 

Other  ceremonies  with  which  a  bishop  was  appointed  to  office, 
says  nothing  of  this  ; "  for  the  case  is  not  strictly  to  the  point. 
I  lay  no  stress  upon  the  tactual  imposition  of  hands :  the  prayer 
was  the  essential  element  of  the  rite ;  the  gesture  was  its  ordi- 
nary, and  —  as  we  have  good  reason  to  believe  —  its  invariable 
accompaniment.     In  this  case,  however,  a  comparison  with  the 
sources  of  Apost.  Const.  VIII.  4  (i.  e.  the  so-called  Egyptian 
Cliurcli  Ordinances,  c.  31,  and  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  c.  ii.  7) 
makes  it  seem  exceedingly  unlikely  that  the  interpolator  in- 
tended to  suppress  the  rite  of  imposition  of  hands  in  favor  of 
his  liturgical  fancy  of  having  the  deacons  hold  the  Gospel  over 
the  ordinand's  head  during   the  prayer  of  consecration.     The 
other  argument   which  Hatch  adduces  is  more  specious,  but 
demonstrably    more  fallacious :  "  Nor  is  the  rite  mentioned  in 
the  enumeration  which  St.  Cyprian  gives  {Epist.  55   [52] )  of 
the  elements  which  had  combined  to  make  the  election  of  Cor- 
nelius valid :  it  was  of  importance  to  show  that  no  essential 
particular  had  been  omitted,  but  he  enumerates  only  the  votes 
of  the  people,  the  testimony  of  the  clergy,  the  consent  of  the 
bishops."     For  Cyprian,  the  point  at  issue  was  the  legality  of 
the  election  of  Cornelius  as  against  Novatian;  not  the  sacra- 
mental validity,  —  which  both  opponents  might  claim,  though 
according  to  Cyprian's   doctrine   of  the  dependence  of  sacra- 
ments upon  the  worthiness  of  the  minister,  even  this  might  be 
denied   Novatian.     It   is  not  strange  therefore  that  the  most 
distinctively  religious  element  in  ordination  should  be  passed 
over:  the  fact  rather  suggests  that  the  right  of  imposition  of 
hands  was  so  universally  recognized  as  indispensable  that  it 
did  not  need  to  be  mentioned.    Hatch's  citation  of  this  instance 
is,  in  fact,  peculiarly  unfortunate,  for  it  involves  a  reference  to 
the  story  of  Novatian's  ordination  (Euseb.  H.  E.  6,  43),  which  is 
the  strongest  evidence  we  have  of  the  opinion  which  was  current 
in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  and  especially  at  Eome,  as 
to  the  indispensable  necessity  of  ordination  by  imposition  of 
hands,  —  and,  indeed,  hy  three  bishops. 

Hatch  has  no  further  proofs  to  offer.  But  —  strangely 
enough  —  Bishop  Wordsworth  (p.  128  sq.)  comes  to  his  as- 
sistance with  an  elaborate  argument  which  at  first  sight  seems 


26  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

imposing.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there  is  not  one  sound  pre- 
sumption in  it.  "What  speciousness  it  has,  depends  entirely 
upon  the  theory  of  the  original  identity  of  presbyters  and 
bishops;  a  question  which  must  be  investigated  further  on 
(see  §  21,  pp.  244  sq.).  The  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  whatever 
be  their  age  or  origin,  do  not  "  suggest  a  stage  of  development  in 
which  the  two  titles  were  being  gradually  distinguished  " :  they 
suggest  the  contrary.  In  particular  the  injunction  in  c.  iv.  30, 
31,  to  the  effect  that  in  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter  the  same 
prayer  shall  be  used  as  over  a  bishop,  "  with  merely  the  excep- 
tion of  the  name  of  the  episcopate,"  does  not  raise  a  presump- 
tion that  no  new  ordination  was  required  when  a  preshyter  was 
made  bishop.  The  peculiar  importance  of  ordination  to  the 
episcopate  is  assumed  in  c.  vi.  43,  44,  where  it  is  ordered  that 
a  martyr  shall  be  admitted  as  a  presbyter  without  ordination, 
but  if  he  would  be  bishop  he  must  be  ordained.  Meretur 
gradum  presbyterialem  coram  Deo,  non  secundum  ordinationem, 
quae  fit  ab  episcopo.  Immo,  confessio  est  ordinatio  ejus.  Quodsi 
vero  episcopus  fit,  ordinetur.  Achelis,  Texte  u.  Untersuch.  VI.  4, 
p.  67.  The  question  of  the  right  of  presbyters  to  ordain,  and  that 
of  the  possible  elevation  to  the  episcopate  without  ordination, 
are  separate  and  must  be  carefully  distinguished.  The  injunc- 
tion of  Canon.  Jlippol.  ii.  10  (that  "  one  from  among  the  bishops 
and  presbyters  be  chosen  to  lay  hands  on  his  [the  elected  bish- 
op's] head  and  pray  ")  does  not  go  any  way  towards  proving 
the  latter  assumption.  The  purely  exegetical  theory  of  Ambro- 
siaster  cannot  rightly  be  brought  into  any  relation  with  the  fact 
that  in  the  Canon.  Hippol.  the  same  prayer  was  used  in  the 
ordination  of  bishops  and  presbyters.  These,  however,  together 
with  St.  Jerome's  view,  are  the  proofs  upon  which  Wordsworth 
relies  to  establish  the  astonishing  thesis  that  in  the  third  cen- 
tury Rome  and  Alexandria  —  precisely  the  two  most  authorita- 
tive Churches  in  Christendom  —  were  so  far  behind  the  rest  of 
the  world  that  they  recognized  no  essential  difference  between 
presbyters  and  bishops ! 

That  the  situation  at  Alexandria  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  was  peculiar,  we  have  good  ground  for  supposing.  We 
may  presume  that  the  peculiarity  was  an  archaic  survival,  and 


§  3]  CATHOLIC    DEVELOPMENT  27 

that  it  consisted  essentially  in  the  fact  that  the  Alexandrian 
presbyters  maintained  a  higher  importance  relative  to  the 
bishop  than  was  elsewhere  the  case.  All  the  other  evidence 
which  we  have  on  this  subject  unites  in  pointing  out  the  pre- 
cise mode  in  which  the  peculiar  privilege  of  the  Alexandrian 
presbyters  was  exhibited.  Ambrosiaster  {ad  Ephes.  4:12)  says  : 
Denique  in  Egyptum  presbyteri  consignant,  si  presens  non  sit 
episcopus,  —  "in  Egypt  the  presbyters  ordain,  if  the  bishop 
be  not  present."  Probably  the  ordination  of  presbyters  and 
deacons  is  here  meant.  Consignant  is  probably  a  corruption, 
for  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century  no  writer,  even  in  the 
West,  would  speak  of  the  custom  of  Alexandria  as  unique 
allowing  a  presbyter  to  confirm  in  the  absence  of  the  bishop ; 
and  St.  Jerome  affirms  generally  —  not  merely  with  reference 
to  Alexandria  —  that  ordination  is  the  only  exclusive  preroga- 
tive of  the  bishop.  At  all  events  in  the  parallel  passage  by 
the  anonymous  author  (perhaps  the  same  as  the  so-called 
Ambrosiaster)  of  Quaestioncs  Vcteris  et  Novi  Testimcnti,  falsely 
attributed  to  Augustine,  the  corruption  has  crept  in  (Quacst. 
101,  referring  as  usual  to  1  Timothy) :  Quid  est  enim  episcopus 
nisi  primus  presbyter,  hoc  est  sumus  sacerdos  ?  Denique  non 
aliter  quam  compresbyteros  hie  vocat  et  consacerdotes  sues. 
.  .  .  Nam  in  Alexandria  et  per  totam  Aegyptam,  si  desit 
episcopus,  consecrat  (v.  I.  consignat)  presbyter.  One  may  raise 
the  question  whether  this  situation  endured  up  to  the  time 
of  this  writer  (which  is  improbable),  and  whether  even  in  the 
third  century  it  was  the  same  "  throughout  all  Egypt ; "  but 
for  Alexandria  itself  it  is  substantiated  by  Eutychius  {Annales 
I.  p.  331,  ed.  Pococke,  Oxon.  1656),  who  though  a  late  writer 
(tenth  century)  was  himself  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  who 
writes  independently  of  Jerome,  contradicting  him  in  some 
details,  and  adding  others  which  help  to  explain  the  situation. 
Constituit  evangelista  Marcus  una  cum  Hakania  patriarcha 
duodecim  presbyteros,  qui  nempe  cum  patriarcha  manerent, 
adeo  ut  cum  vacaret  patriarchatus  unum  e  duodecim  presby- 
teris  eligerent,  cuius  capiti  relinqui  undecim  manus  imponentes 
ipsi  benedicerent  et  patriarcham  crearent,  deinde  virum  aliquem 
insignem  eligerent,  quern  secum  presbyterum  constituerunt  loco 


28  .  INTRODUCTIOX  [I 

eius,  qui  factus  est  patriarcha,  ut  ita  semper  existarent  duo- 
decim.  Neque  desiit  Alexandria  institutum  hoc  de  presbyteris, 
ut  scilicet  patriarchas  crearent  ex  presbyteris  duodecim,  usque 
ad  tempora  Alexandri  patriarchae  Alexandriae.  The  substance 
of  this  is,  that  the  number  of  presbyters  at  Alexandria  was 
limited  to  tivelve,  and  that  down  to  the  time  of  the  council  of 
Nicaea  (of  which  Alexander  was  a  member)  these  twelve 
enjoyed  the  right  of  electing  one  of  their  own  number  and 
consecrating  him  bishop  by  imposition  of  hands. 

In  itself  it  is  not  unlikely  that  in  Alexandria  the  number 
of  presbyters  was  restricted  to  twelve,  on  symbolical  grounds, 
just  as  at  Rome  the  deacons  were  limited  to  seven.  The 
presbyters  were  the  successors  of  the  twelve  Apostles,  as 
the  bishop  was  the  representative  of  Christ.  In  source  A  of 
the  Apostolic  Church  Order,  —  a  document  which  is  plausibly 
ascribed  to  Egypt,  and  is  confidently  to  be  dated  with  Harnack 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century  {Tcxte  u.  Untcrs^ich. 
II.  5,  p.  55),  we  find  the  number  of  presbyters  prescribed  by 
the  symbolical  consideration  that  in  the  Apocalypse  (4:4;  5:8) 
there  were  four  and  twenty  elders  about  the  throne  of  the  Lord. 
This  view  of  the  relation  of  bishop  and  presbyters  respectively 
to  the  Lord  and  to  the  twelve  Apostles  was  not  peculiar  to 
Alexandria;  nor  did  it  represent,  as  Ritschl  claims,  an  idea 
of  the  episcopate  which  proceeded  from  Jerusalem,  more  primi- 
tive than  the  Catholic  theory  which  supplanted  it.  On  the 
contrary,  it  was,  as  is  well  known,  the  view  of  Ignatius :  it  was 
the  universal  Catholic  view,  till  the  idea  of  apostolic  succession 
assumed  a  new  form  in  the  third  century.  If  it  is  a  fact  that 
the  number  of  Alexandrian  presbyters  continued  till  a  com- 
paratively late  period  to  be  thus  limited  in  number,  we  can 
easily  understand  why  they  retained  a  peculiar  dignity  and 
power,  —  just  as  the  seven  deacons  did  at  Eome. 

Except  that  this  statement  of  Eutychius  explains  an  unusual 
situation  at  Alexandria  for  which  we  have  other  evidence,  we 
should  have  small  reason  to  trust  it.  What  can  be  said  in  the 
way  of  harmonizing  his  discrepancy  with  St.  Jerome  in  regard 
to  the  date  when  this  regime  terminated,  has  been  very  well 
said  by  Eitschl,  op.  cit.  pp.  429  sq.     We  have  no  reason  to 


§  3]  CATHOLIC   DEVELOPMENT  29 

trust  the  statement  that  the  presbyters  elected  as  well  as  conse- 
crated their  bishop;  for  we  know  that  the  popular  rights  of 
election  were  long  preserved  in  Alexandria.  This  is  a  natural 
anachronism,  like  the  use  of  the  title  "  Patriarch."  Or  else  the 
word  denotes  merely  the  right  of  nomination,  which  might 
count  upon  the  assent  of  the  people.  The  reason  which 
Eutychius  gives  for  the  exercise  of  what  he  considers  so  ab- 
normal a  right  on  the  part  of  the  presbyters,  we  also  know 
to  be  a  mistake.  For  —  not  to  speak  of  the  fact  that  there 
is  record  of  bishops  in  Egypt  before  Alexander  —  Source  A 
of  the  Apostolic  Church  Order  above  mentioned  reveals  the 
fact  that  bishops  must  have  been  peculiarly  numerous  there 
in  the  second  century.  It  is  prescribed  that  "  If  there  are  few 
persons,  and  in  any  place  there  are  not  found  twelve  men 
capable  of  voting  for  a  bishop,  they  shall  write  to  neighboring 
Churches,  where  the  congregations  are  firmly  established,  that 
three  chosen  men  may  come  from  thence  and  carefully  ex- 
amine who  is  worthy."  Here  election  is  the  important  matter, 
—  or  rather  the  selection  of  the  most  worthy  man.  Ordination 
must  be  assumed,  and  it  must  have  been  administered  by  the 
congregation  and  the  three  deputies :  it  is  possible  that  the  rite 
of  imposition  of  hands  was  performed  by  a  layman,  it  is  certain 
that  it  was  not  necessarily  done  by  a  bishop.  The  only  alterna- 
tive is  that  there  was  no  ordination.  In  the  established  con- 
gregation (comprising  at  least  twelve  men)  the  case  is  plainer : 
here  no  delegates  from  the  neighboring  Churches  are  present, 
and  consequently  no  bishop.  That  the  Church  in  Alexandria 
was  an  "  established  "  congregation  it  need  not  be  said.  It  was 
the  established  congregation  in  Egypt,  and  consequently  there 
could  be  no  question  of  inviting  neighboring  Churches  or  their 
representatives  to  assist  the  "  twelve  presbyters  "  and  the  thou- 
sands of  the  faithful  in  Alexandria  in  examining,  electing,  and 
ordaining  their  bishop.  The  situation  as  here  depicted  is  ex- 
ceedingly significant,  because  it  was  not  a  local  Egyptian 
peculiarity,  but  represents,  as  we  have  reason  to  believe,  the 
normal  and  universal  custom  of  the  Catholic  Church  through- 
out the  first  half  of  the  second  century. 

There  were  special  reasons,  as  we  have  seen,  why  the  custom 


30  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

endured  longer  in  Alexandria  than  elsewhere;  but  there  still 
remains  to  consider  another  element  of  the  situation  which 
was  by  no  means  peculiar  to  Alexandria,  and  which  endured 
as  long  as  the  supposedly  strange  practice  we  have  just  been 
considering :  that  is  the  recognized  superiority  of  the  city 
presbyter  to  the  country  bishop.  The  last  reference  we  have 
to  the  right  of  presbyters  to  ordain  is  the  canon  XIII.  of  the 
council  of  Ancyra  (a.  d.  314),  and  it  is  there  mentioned  only 
to  restrict  it.  It  is  ordained  that "  it  be  not  allowed  to  country- 
bishops  ('x^copeTTLa-KOTroc';)  to  ordain  presbyters  or  deacons,  nor 
even  to  city-presbyters,  except  permission  be  given  in  each 
parish  by  the  bishop  in  writing."  This  is  Lightfoot's  rendering 
(Phil.  p.  232)  of  the  text  which  is  commonly  received,  —  which 
Wordsworth  also  justifies  (op.  cit.  p.  140,  note)  contra  Gore 
(op.  cit.  p.  370,  note  D).  Here  the  city  presbyter  is  recognized 
as  the  superior  of  the  country  bishop,  though  "riot  even"  he 
is  to  be  allowed  to  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons  without 
written  permission  from  his  bishop.  We  can  imagine  how  the 
important  city  presbyters  of  Alexandria  about  this  time  must 
have  rebelled  against  their  patriarch  Alexander's  innovation 
of  introducing  one  whom  they  must  consider  no  more  than  a 
country  bishop  as  their  superior  in  the  matter  of  ordination. 
In  the  age  which  is  represented  by  the  Apostolic  Church  Order, 
with  its  numerous  cures  of  less  than  twelve  men  presided  over 
by  a  bishop,  how  impossible  must  have  been  the  thought  of 
subordinating  the  Alexandrian  presbytery  to  a  p^tapeTrtWoTro"? ! 
Lightfoot  says  (ibid.  p.  232,  note) :  "  The  name  and  office  of 
the  ^^copeTTiV/coTTo?  appear  to  be  reliques  of  the  time  when 
eirlaKoiro^  and  Trpea/BvTepo^  were  synonyms.  While  the  large 
cities  had  their  college  of  presbyters,  for  the  villages  a  single 
7rp€cr^vTtpo<:  (or  eVtcr/coTro?)  would  suffice."  But  from  the 
Apost.  Ch.  Ord.  we  see  what  the  ;^<u/3e7rtcr/co7ro9  really  was : 
he  was  a  Catholic  bishop  in  the  strict  sense,  having  under  him 
(in  the  small  communities  referred  to)  at  least  two  presbyters 
and  three  deacons.  Small  as  his  cure  was,  he  had  the  absolute 
independence  of  the  Catholic  bishop,  and  he  lost  it  only  as  he 
became  absorbed  in  the  metropolitan  presbytery,  —  the  situa- 
tion implied  in  the  canon  XIII.  of  Ancyra. 


§4]  REFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  31 

It  is  to  be  remarked  that  this  canon  is  the  earliest  evidence 
we  have  considered  for  presbyterial  ordination  of  presbyters  and 
deacons.  This  probably  was  a  less  common  case  than  the 
ordination  of  bishops.  For  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case 
that  the  bishop  was  ordinarily  the  person  to  ordain  his  own 
staff,  —  with  or  without  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery,  as  might  be  the  custom. 

§  4,    EEFOKMATION   PRINCIPLES 

1  do  not  purpose  to  give  a  history  of  the  various 
forms  of  Church  government  which  followed  the  Refor- 
mation. This  would  be  out  of  all  plaoe  and  proportion 
in  an  introduction.  But  a  brief,  synoptical  statement 
of  the  principles  which  determined  this  development  in 
its  divergent  lines  will  enable  us  to  understand  the 
point  of  subsequent  controversy,  and  may  prepare  the 
mind  for  investigating  without  prejudice  the  primitive 
institutions  of  Christianity.^  Some  of  these  principles 
may  be  traced  back  to  conceptions  which  were  common 
to  all  Protestant  theologians  ;  but  the  divergence,  too, 
was  already  definitely  marked  in  the  first  age  of  the 
Reformation,  and  the  subsequent  development  was  con- 
ditioned by  it.^ 

The  chief  point  of  divergence  can  be  the  more  defi- 
nitely stated  because  it  was  determined  by  the  opinions 

-  The  references  cited  under  this  section  are  to  be  regarded  rather  as 
illustration  than  as  proof.  It  must  be  manifest  that  statements  of  so 
general  a  character  as  these  that  are  here  made  do  not  readily  admit 
of  detailed  proof,  —  nor  do  they  need  it.  As  specially  worthy  to  be 
consulted  in  this  connection,  I  mention  :  Kliefoth,  Acht  Biicher  von  der 
Kirche,  Bd.  I.  1854 ;  Kostliu,  Luthers  Lehre  von  der  Kirche,  1868 ;  Krauss, 
Das  protestantische  Dor/ma  von  der  unsichtharen  Kirche,  1876 ;  Sohm, 
Kirchenrecht,  Bd.  I.  1892;  Seeberg,  Der  Begriff  der  Christ.  Kirche,  1885. 

2  As  has  been  said  above,  the  forms  of  Church  government  which 
actually  characterized  the  various  Protestant  communions  were  not 
logically  (essentially)  related  to  these  principles,  but  only  historically 
(accidentally)  conditioned  by  them. 


32  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

I  of  two  men.  Luther  and  Calvin  are  representative  of 
I  two  sharply  contrasted  temperaments  ;  and  not  only  did 
they  stamp  the  express  image  of  their  spirit  upon  the 
creeds  of  the  two  great  Protestant  systems,  but  their 
own  writings  have  continued  to  enjoy  almost  confes- 
sional authority.  It  is  futile  to  try  to  minimize  these 
differences.  That  sentence  of  Luther's  at  Marburg  is 
almost  as  true  with  reference  to  Church  government  as 
it  is  with  reference  to  worship :  Ikr  habt  einen  anderii 
Geist  als  ivir.^ 

The  first  and  the  principal  protest  of  the  Reforma- 
jtion  was  against  the  Catholic  idea  of  the  Church.  This 
is  a  protest  which  is  no  less  essential  now  than  it  was 
then  to  the  integrity  of  the  Protestant  position,  though 
its  necessity  was  then  so  acutely  felt  as  to  be  recog- 
nized by  all.  A  pious  mind  could  not  but  be  vexed  by 
the  incongruity  between  a  corrupt  Church  and  that 
congregation  of  saints  to  which  the  Apostle  applies  the 
sublime  predicates,  the  household  of  God,  the  body,  the 
bride  of  Christ.  St.  Augustine  reckoned  with  this  incon- 
gruity, which  was  the  chief  ground  of  the  Donatist 
schism ;   but  the    solution    that  he  offered  {de   Doctr, 


2  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  position  of  the  English  Church  can- 
not be  classified  so  easily.  It  was  strongly  influenced  by  both  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  theology,  while  the  retention  of  the  Catholic 
organization  rendered  it  receptive  of  other  elements  of  Catholic  tradition. 
So  far  as  its  position  is  authoritatively  defined,  the  definition  of  the 
sacraments  is  Reformed,  the  definition  of  the  Church  is  Lutheran,  — 
or  more  strictly  it  is  Melanchthon's  definition.  The  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  was  more  directly  influenced  by  Reformed  agendas  than  by 
Lutheran  ;  but  the  liberal  Christian  spirit  which  animated  the  whole 
reform  of  worship  was  Luther's  spirit,  —  as  much  opposed  to  the  spirit 
of  Calvin  as  to  the  spirit  of  Rome,  and  altogether  out  of  keeping  with 
the  disastrous  civil  policy  of  enforcing  uniformity.  The  doctrine  of 
apostolic  succession  which  has  subsequently  been  commonly  entertained 
in  the  Anglican  communion  necessitates  a  definition  of  the  Church 
opposed  to  that  of  the  Articles. 


§  4]  REFORMATION   PRINCIPLES  33 

3  :  32)  in  his  distinction  between  the  corjjus  Domini 
verum  and  2?eriiiixtuin  or  simulatum,  i.  e.  between  the 
true  and  the  mixed  Church,  was  far  from  perfect. 

The  same  incongruity  is  to  be  felt,  indeed,  though  in 
a  less  degree,  when  we  look  back  upon  New  Testament 
times  :  St.  Paul  attributed  the  name  of  saints  collec- 
tively to  Christian  societies  which  certainly  did  not  even 
then  consist  exclusively  of  holy  persons.  How  much 
more  when  the  Church  was  desperately  corrupt  in  its 
head  and  principal  members ;  when  the  official  power 
which  it  claimed  to  exercise  in  the  name  of  God  was  used 
to  oppose  the  truth  !  The  reformers  who  faced  the  alter- 
native of  denying  the  truth  or  suffering  separation  from 
the  Church,  were  obliged  to  assert  —  and  the  assertion 
was  made  with  full  force  of  faith,  and  not  as  a  shift 
and  apology  for  their  position  —  that  the  Roman  Church,  'i 
the  legally  organized  Church,  was  not  the  exclusive  in-  j 
stitute  of  salvation,  was  not  to  be  identified  with  the  ' 
people  of  God,  the  body  of  Christ.  This  assertion  all 
Protestants  imited  in  making. 

The  actual  retention  of  the  legal  (Catholic)  organiza- 
tion by  the  English  Protestants  did  not  affect  their  doc- 
trinal position.  Men  had  been  so  long  accustomed  to 
regard  communion  with  the  Papacy  as  the  ultimate 
legitimation  of  Church  standing,  that  they  could  not 
easily  be  satisfied  with  a  half-way  view ;  that  is,  with  the 
early  Catholic  theory  of  independent  episcopacy.  The 
English  movement,  even  more  than  the  German,  reflects 
the  new  spirit  of  nationality  :  it  was  as  a  national  church, 
not  as  an  episcopal  church,  that  it  legitimated  its  reform. 

The  distinction  which  all  united  in  making,  more  or 
less  expressly,  was  that  between  the  visible  and  the  in-i^ 
visible  Church.     It  was  obviously  a  rough   and  ready 
way  of  solving  the  problem  which  pressed  upon  all. 


34  INTRODUCTIOX  [  I 

How  inadequate  and  even  misleading  the  solution  was, 
men  did  not  then  realize.  We  have  to  remark  that  it  is 
a  distinction  which  was  not  made  by  St.  Paul,  nor  by  any 
other  New  Testament  writer.  It  is  therefore  liable  to 
abuse,  for  it  leads  one  to  deny  to  the  visible  Church 
those  high  attributes  which  St.  Paul  applied  to  the 
only  Church  he  had  ever  in  mind.  And  however 
great  may  be  its  theoretical  advantages,  its  practical 
dangers  are  greater  ;  because  it  depotentiates  the  only 
notion  of  the  Church  which  can  be  an  effective  inspi- 
ration to  service,  in  fact  does  away  with  the  Church  as 
the  social  sphere  of  Christian  life. 

Wyclif,  and  after  him  Hus,  defined  the  true  Church 
^as  universitas  2?raedesti?iatoru7n  —  the  whole  body  of 
A  those  who  are  predestinated.  It  is  evident  that  we 
have  here,  not  only  Augustine's  doctrine  of  salvation, 
but  07ie  side  of  his  doctrine  of  the  Church  —  his  dis- 
tinction between  the  corjms  verum  and  permixtwn.  One- 
sided indeed  the  doctrine  is  with  "Wyclif  and  Hus ;  for 
this  Church  has  no  actual  existence  as  a  social  bond  ;  it 
is  no  community  of  saints  in  which  each  member  serves 
the  other  and  edifies  the  whole ;  it  is  a  mere  numerical 
abstraction,  representing  all  predestinated  persons,  who 
are  scattered  here  and  there  throughout  the  world,  in- 
distinguishable from  nominal  Christians. 


In  his  first  public  disputation  (at  Leipsic  in  1519) 
Liither  defended  this  definition  of  Hus.  This  is  sig- 
nificant of  the  fact  that  his  idea  of  the  invisible  Church 
was,  like  Calvin's,  intimately  related  to  his  doctrine  of 
justification  :  the  Church  is  the  whole  number  of  those 
-who  are  holy  by  reason  of  their  faith.  He  clung  to  the 
I  clause  in  the  creed,  "  the  communion  of  saints,"  as  the 
I  authoritative  definition  of  the  Church.    Holiness  was  for 


i 


§  4]  REFORMATIOX  PRINCIPLES  35 

Luther  the  principal  note  of  the  Church ;  but  it  is  not  I 
a  visible  note  —  this  holiness  which  is  by  faith.     Thej  L. 
Church  is  the  object  of  faith,  not  of  sight ;  and  in  that/ ' » 
sense  it  is  invisible. 

And  yet  this  Church  is  no  mere  ideal.  Luther  mani- 
fests here  his  strong,  practical  grasp  of  evangelical  prin- 
ciple. He  himself  did  not  contrast  the  Church  visible 
and  the  Church  invisible,  as  was  done  by  Chemnitz  and 
the  later  Lutheran  theologians.  According  to  Luther, 
the  Church  which  is  visible  primarily  to  faith,  may  be 
also  visible  outwardly :  (1)  in  the  ministry  of  the  word 
and  in  the  sacraments,  and  (2)  in  a  life  conformable  to' 
God's  law.  Luther  constantly  thinks  and  speaks  of  the 
Cliurch  as  the  visible  manifestation  of  God's  kingdom.* 
This  Church,  being  "God's  own  house,"  can  be  consti-' 
tuted  and  ruled  no  otherwise  than  by  God's  own  law,; 
that  is  by  his  word. 

It  is  well  known  that  Luther  made  the  reality  of  the 
sacraments  wholly  dependent  upon  God's  word.  No 
otherwise  was  it  with  the  Church :  where  God's  word 
is  —  that  is,  where  the  Gospel  is  truly  preached,  truly 
confessed,  and  truly  followed  —  there  is  the  holy  catho- 
lic Church,  even  though  the  members  be  few,^     This  is 

4  Sermon  on  20th  S.  aft.  Trin.  (1533),  Erlangen  ed.  Bd.  6,  p.  132: 
Hie  soil  man  erstlich  lernen,  was  das  Wort  Himmelreich  heise,  namlich 
das  es  nicht  heise  ein  Konigreich  auf  Erden,  sondern  ein  Reich  im 
Himniel,  da  Gott  selber  allein  Kdnig  iniie  ist.  Das  heisen  wir  die 
christlichen  Kirchen,  die  hier  auf  Erden  ist.  .  .  .  Auf  gut  deutsch  heiset 
das  Himmelreich  ebenso  viel  als  das  Reich  Christi,  das  Reich  des 
Evangelii  und  des  Glaubens.  Denn  wo  das  Evangelium  ist,  da  ist 
Christus.  Wo  Christus  ist,  da  ist  der  heilige  Geist  und  sein  Reich, 
das  rechte  Himmeh-eich.  Von  Conc'diis  und  Kirchen,  Erl.  ed.  Bd.  25, 
p.  447 :  Auf  Erden  allein  zwei  leiblich  Regiment  sind,  Stadt  und  Haus. 
.  .  .  Darnach  kdmpt  das  Dritte,  Gottes  eigen  Haus  und  Stadt,  das  ist 
die  Kirche. 

^  Von  Conciliis  und  Kirchen,  Erl.  ed.  Bd.  25,  p.  419:  Wo  du  nu  solch 
Wort  horest  oder  siehest  predigen,  glauben,  bekennen  und  darnach  thun, 


36  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

Luther's  rendering  of  the  early  maxim,  "  where  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Chm^ch."  For  by  God's  word 
he  means,  not  the  mere  letter  of  the  Bible,  l^ut  the  truth, 
the  Gospel,  —  particularly  the  Gospel  as  it  is  i^reached. 
He  recurs  repeatedly  to  the  Lord's  promise,  "  where  two 
or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I 
in  the  midst  of  them  ; "  and  he  interprets  this  to  mean 
nothing  less  than  was  expressed  by  the  early  maxim  — 
which  had  already  lost  the  sincerity  of  its  meaning  in 
TertuUian's  time  —  ubi  tres,  ihi  ecdesia.  From  this 
truly  evangelical  principle  Luther  developed  his  whole 
idea  of  the  Church,  which  he  maintained  throughout  his 
life,  suffering  no  dread  of  practical  consequences  to  mar 
the  consistency  of  his  teaching  on  this  point.  It  is  sur- 
prising to  note  how  faithfully  he  reflects  the  primitive 
notion,  when  he  sees  in  a  Christian  community  so  con- 
stituted—  however  small  it  be  —  not  a  church,  nor  a 
branch  of  the  Church,  but  the  Church.  It  is  upon  the 
power  granted  to  the  "  two  or  three  "  that  he  founds  the 
rights  of  the  national  Church,  or  of  any  other  larger 
body  whatsoever.^ 

da  habe  keinen  Zweifel,  dass  gewisslich  daselbs  sein  muss  eine  rechte 
Ecclesia  sancta  catholica,  ein  christlich  heilig  Yolk,  wenn  ihr  gleich  sehr 
wenig  sind. 

6  Von  der  Winkelmesse,  Erl.  ed.  Bd.  31,  p.  374 :  Wo  das  Evaiigelium 
recht  und  rein  gepredigt  wird,  da  muss  eine  heilige  christliche  Kirche 
sein.  .  .  .  Wo  aber  eine  heilige  christliche  Kirche  ist,  da  miissen  alle  Sakra- 
ment  sein,  Christus  selbs  und  sein  Ileiliger  Geist.  Sollten  wir  nu  eine 
heilige  christliche  Kirche  sein  und  die  grosten  und  notigsten  Stiick  haben, 
als  Gottes  Wort,  Christum,  Geist,  Glauben,  Gebet,  Taufe,  Sacrament, 
Schliissel,  Ampt,  und  sollten  nicht  auch  das  geringste  Stiick  haben, 
namlich  die  Macht  und  Recht,  Etliche  zum  Ampt  zu  berufen,  die  uns 
das  Wort,  Taufe,  Sacrament,  Vergebung  (so  bereit  da  sind)  darreichten 
und  drinnen  dieneten  :  was  ware  mir  das  f iir  eine  Kirche  ?  AVo  bleibe 
hie  Christus  Wort,  da  er  spricht :  Wo  zween  oder  drei  in  meinem  Namen 
versammlet  sind,  da  bin  ich  unter  ihnen?  Und  abermal:  Wo  zween 
iinter  euch  eins  werdeu  au£  Erden,  warumb  es  ist,  das  sie  bitten  wollen, 
das  soil  ihn  widerfahren  von  meinem  Vater  in  Himmel.  Haben  zween 
oder  drei  solche  Gewalt,  wie  vie!  mehr  eine  gauze  Kirche  ? 


§4]  REFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  .  37 

It  can  readily  be  seen  how  thoroughly  this  excludes 
the  idea  that  a  priesthood,  clerus,  or  any  authorized 
order  or  organization  is  indispensable  for  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church.  The  whole  power  of  ecclesiastical 
rule  (Kirchenregimentu)  lies  in  the  word  of  God,  and 
this  power  is  given  to  all.  This  is  the  sceptre  of  God's 
kingdom ;  upon  it  is  founded  the  power  of  the  keys,  the 
power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  which  Christ  gave  not  to 
the  Apostles  in  especial,  but  to  the  Church  as  a  whole, 
—  or  rather  to  every  disciple  as  a  personal  gift,  in  pro- 
portion as  each  possesses  the  word. 

But  what  of  ecclesiastical  officers  ?  How  can  there 
be  officers  in  such  a  Church  ?  Officers  there  are,  and 
there  must  he,  for  the  whole  multitude  cannot  preach, 
absolve,  and  administer  the  sacraments,  and  therefore 
they  must  commit  this  function  (or  suffer  it  to  be  com- 
mitted) to  one.  Luther  insisted  strongly  upon  the  ne- 
cessity of  establishing  ministers  of  the  word  throughout 
the  land ;  —  it  made  no  difference  what  they  might  be 
called,  whether  bishops,  pastors,  or  preachers.  But  he 
argued  the  necessity  solely  upon  practical  grounds ;  and 
to  the  end  of  his  life  he  never  wavered  in  this  opinion, 
great  as  was  the  temptation  to  strengthen  the  author- 
ity of  the  pastors  l^y  referring  their  office  to  divine 
institution.^ 

QAugs.  Conf.  Cap.  14. 

8  Von  Conciliis  und  Kirchen,  Erl.  ed.  Bd.  25,  p.  423 :  Zum  Funften 
kennet  man  die  Kirche  iiuserlich  dabei,  dass  sie  Kirchendiener  weiht 
oder  beruft  oder  Aempter  hat,  die  sie  bestellen  soil.  Denn  man  nmss 
Bischofe,  Pharrherr  oder  Pi-ediger  haben,  die  offentlich  und  sonderlich 
die  obgenannten  vier  Stiick  oder  Heiligthum  [Gottes  Wort,  Sakrament 
der  Taufe,  Sakrament  des  Altars,  Schliisselgewalt]  geben,  reichen  und 
uben,  von  wegen  und  in  Namen  der  Kirchen,  vielmehr  aber  aus  Einset- 
zung  Christi,  vvie  St.  Paulas  Eph.  4  sagt:  Accepit  dona  in  hominibus, 
er  hat  gegeben  etlich  zu  Aposteln,  Propheten,  Evangelisten,  Lehrer, 
Regierer  u.  s.  w.  Denn  der  Haufe  ganz  kann  solchs  nicht  thun,  sondern 
miissens  Einem  befelhen  oder  lassen  befolhen  seiu.     Was  wollt  sonst 


38  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

The  power  of  ecclesiastical  rule  must,  out  of  practical 
consideration  for  good  order,  be  exercised  by  one ;  but 
this  did  not  make  void  the  power  of  each  member  of 
the  Church,  for  their  power  was  not  a  personal  power, 
but  the  power  inherent  in  God's  word  which  they  j)os- 
sessed.  Therefore  the  power  of  the  officer  —  the  min- 
ister of  the  word  —  was  not  rendered  less  absolute 
because  it  was  not  an  exclusive  power,  nor  less  divine 
because  the  office  was  justified  by  expediency :  it  was 
the  whole  power  of  Church  rule,  the  ivhole  power  of 
God's  word,  to  which  obedience  was  due  as  to  the 
truth.  Therefore,  too,  the  office  was  not  a  representa- 
tive one,  and  it  was  a  matter  of  comparative  indiffer- 
ence in  what  way  or  by  whom  the  officer  was  appointed, 
if  only  in  such  a  way  as  would  insure  popular  assent.^ 
His  power  did  not  represent  the  power  of  the  individ- 
uals who  made  up  the  Church  :  it  was  the  power  of  God, 
and  he  was  the  representative  of  Christ.  According  to 
Luther's  idea,  Church  government  (Kirchenregiment) 
properly  so  called  consisted  solely  in  the  preaching  of 
the  word,  administering  the  sacraments,  and  exercising 
the  power  of  the  keys  (the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose), 
which  included  the  ban,  or  excommunication.  The 
office  was  of  human  institution,  but  the  poiver  was  of 
divine  institution,  the  gift  of  Christ  to  his  Church. 

werden,  wenn  ein  jglicher  reden  oder  reichen  wollt,  und  keiner  dem 
andeni  weichen?  Es  muss  Einem  allein  befolben  werden,  und  allein 
lassen  predigen,  taufen,  absolvieren  und  Sakrament  reichen,  die  andern 
alle  des  zufrieden  sein  und  drein  willigen.  Wo  du  nu  solchs  siehest,  da 
sei  gewiss,  dass  da  Gottes  Volk  und  das  christlich  heilig  Volk  sei. 

^  The  English  formularies  were  so  drawn  as  at  least  not  to  exclude 
this  view  —  Art.  xxiii.  It  may  be  observed  in  this  connection  that  the 
retention  in  the  English  Ordinal  of  the  medieval  sentence  of  ordination, 
"  Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven ;  and  whose  sins  thou 
dost  retain,  they  are  retained,"  is  to  be  explained  by  the  Lutheran 
doctrine. 


§4]  REFORMATION   PRINCIPLES  39 

This  view  of  the  Church  and  of  Church  government 
is  entirely  consistent  in  itself,  and  it  seems  to  exclude 
the  notion  that  any  human  authority  can  be  exercised 
over  God's  kingdom,  or  any  legal  constitution  be  im- 
posed upon  it.  So  Sohm  argues.  But  I  cannot  alto- 
gether agree  with  him  here.  His  view  has  been  strongly 
contested  in  Germany,  where  Luther's  personal  doctrine 
is  still  a  matter  of  great  practical  moment. 

It  is  certainly  true  that  Luther  held  other  views 
about  the  regulation  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  whicli  seem 
to  us  frankly  inconsistent  with  the  above,  though  to 
him  they  probably  seemed  to  refer  to  a  totally  different 
sphere.  Luther  and  the  Lutheran  confessions  limit 
strictly  the  idea  of  Church  government  to  the  purely! 
spiritual  rule  which  has  just  been  described ;  but  theyl 
both  recognize  another  rule,  which  was  expressly  of  a 
worldly  character,  designed  to  maintain  external  order 
and  regulate  the  conduct  of  worship  and  discipline. 
Here  we  have  the  idea  of  a  government  which  we  can- 
not but  think  of  as  ecclesiastical,  though  Luther  doubt- 
less thought  of  it  as  exercised  not  so  much  in  the  Church 
as  over  it.  The  jDower  over  this  broad  province  of  eccle- 
siastical regiment  fell  naturally,  and  in  a  certain  sense 
by  right,  to  the  civil  ruler  (Landesherr).  It  was  he  that 
appointed  the  ministers  of  the  word,  prescribed  the  rit- 
ual, administered  the  economical  affairs  of  the  Church, 
regulated  the  important  question  of  marriage,  and  de- 
cided all  questions  of  outward  discipline.  According  to 
Luther's  theory,  the  civil  magistrate  exercised  his  power, 
in  part  as  "  the  chief  member  of  the  Church,"  and  in  part 
as  the  one  to  whom  God  had  given  the  worldly  sword 
—  in  distinction  from  the  spiritual.  It  seems  to  be  true, 
though  it  involves  a  strange  contradiction,  that  Luther's 
thoroughly  spiritual  and  evangelical  idea  of  the  Church, 


40  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

and  his  consequent  indifference  to  the  question  what 
power  should  rule  the  external  order,  was  in  part  the 
justification,  and  certainly  the  occasion,  in  the  circum- 
stances of  that  time,  of  the  development  which  has 
since  completely  subjected  the  Lutheran  Church  to  the 
bijr.eaucratic  control  of  the  state. 
\  In  order  to  understand  the  close  relation  between 
Church  and  State  which  actually  subsisted  not  only  in 
the  Lutheran,  but  in  the  Reformed  and  Anglican  com- 
munions, we  must  remember  that  medieval  Christianity 
had  succeeded  in  its  effort  to  ecclesiasticize  the  world, 
l^%  only  to  find  that  this  was  equivalent  to  secularizing 
'the  Church.  When  we  consider  how  the  government 
of  strictly  secular  affairs  was  shared  between  the  civil 
magistrate  and  the  ecclesiastical  prelate ;  when  we  re- 
flect that  the  secular  authority  of  the  pope,  and  even 
of  the  bishops,  was  the  most  conspicuous  aspect  of 
their  office,  we  can  see  how  natural  it  was  for  the 
Landesherr  in  Germany  to  assume  the  authority  of 
the  episcopate,  for  the  King^of.  Euglaoxd  to  retain  the 
authority  which  he  had  wrested  from  the  pope,  and  — 
the  most  extreme  case  of  all  —  for  Zwingli  to  turn  over 
the  whole  spiritual  government  of  the  congregation 
to  the  civil  magistrates  of  Zurich^    It  seemed  a  matter 

^°  Owing  to  the  inability  of  the  secular  government  to  manage  di- 
rectly ecclesiastical  affairs,  the  general  government  of  the  Lutheran 
Churches  was  committed  to  superintendents  and  consistories,  appointed 
and  controlled  by  the  state.  Several  theories  have  been  in  vogue  from 
time  to  time  to  justify  the  status  quo  (the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  power 
by  the  state),  and  each  of  them  has  been  influential  in  modifying  the 
actual  constitution  of  the  government.  The  earliest  was  the  so-called 
Episcopalsystem,  which  ascribed  to  the  prince  the  potestas  jurisdictionis 
of  the  bishop,  —  and  even  the  potestas  ordinis !  The  same  theory  was 
applied  by  the  English  to  the  ecclesiastical  power  of  the  king.  Upon  this, 
and  upon  the  two  later  theories  which  successively  predominated  —  the 
Territorialsystem  and  the  KoUegialsystem  —  see  Herzog's  Realencyklopadie 
s.  vv.     The  practical  effect  of  this  German  system,  for  which  Luther  was 


§  4]  REFORMATION   PRINCIPLES  41 

of  comparative  indifference  who  regulated  the  outward 
affairs  of  the  Church,  —  whether  bishop  or  prince. 
From  the  practical  point  of  view  the  state  found  itself 
unprepared  to  deal  with  the  new  questions  which  were 
forced  upon  it ;  the  old  order  being  done  away,  no  new 
machinery  had  been  devised  to  take  its  place ;  the  civil 
courts,  for  instance,  were  embarrassed  by  the  necessity 
of  adjudicating  questions  of  marriage,  which  hitherto 
had  belonged  to  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction. 

It  was  in  view  of  all  this,  as  well  as  for  the  sake  of  1/ 
peace  and  outward  unity,  that  Luther  was  ready  to  sub- II 
mit  to  the  whole  papal  and  episcopal  regime,  if  only  it"    ' 
y  were  not  enjoined  as  a  matter  of  faith,  and  were  not 
'•  used  to  subvert  the  Gospel.     Luther's  attitude  in  this 
matter  is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  he,  in  com- 
mon with  many  of  his  time,  regarded  the  rule  of  the 
pope  (and  the  bishops)  rather  as  a  secular  rule  over  ^ 
the  Church  than  as  a  spiritual  rule  in  it.     Hence  it  was 
a  choice  merely  between  the  pope  and  the  Landesherr 
or  any  other  civil   authority.     He  denied   the  divine 
right   of   the  pope,  on   the  ground   that   he   held   no 
office  in  the  Church  —  that  is,  that  he  did  not  exer- 
cise the  ministry  of  the  word  in  any  congregation.     It 
is  well  known  that  at  a  later  time  Melanchthon  cher- 
ished the  hope  of  restoring  the  episcopal  rule  as  the 
only  means  of  establishing  the  outward  order  of  the 
Church. 

The  doctrine  of  the  invisible  Church,  which,  as  we  \ 
have  seen,  Luther  held  in  a  very  characteristic  form,  I 

at  least  indirectly  responsible,  has  been  to  represent  the  Church  as  an 
institute  for  dispensing  grace  by  word  and  sacrament  to  a  merely 
passive  and  receptive  people.  The  same  is  of  course  true  of  the  English 
Church,  except  as  it  has  been  vivified  by  the  Reformed  ideas  of  popular 
representation  in  government,  and  by  the  Puritan  sense  of  personal 
responsibility. 


42  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

was  given  a  new  meaning  by  the  Reformed  theologians, 
who  for  the  first  time  distinguished  the  invisible  from 
the  visible  Church. 

The  Reformed  theology  is  nowhere  so  much  beholden 
to  ^vingli  as  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  —  particu- 
larly as  regards  the  definition  of  the  visible  Cburcli. 
The  principles  which  underlie  all  of  the  most  striking 
peculiarities  of  Calvin's  system  of  Church  government 
were  already  defined  Ijy  Zwin^li.  In  his  doctrine  of  the 
invisible  Church  he  stood  in  a  measure  apart,  for  though 
he  defined  it,  like  Luther  and  the  other  reformers,  as 
the  whole  company  of  the  elect,  he  abstracted  the  no- 
tion from  any  reference  to  the  sacraments,  and  made 
even  the  word  of  revelation  in  so  far  unessential  that 
he  could  think  of  the  invisible  Church  as  including  even 
pious  pagans.  This  abstract  doctrine  has  been  without 
effect  upon  Reformed  theology,  for  Calvin  brought  it 
again  into  line  with  the  general  trend  of  Protestant 
thought,  making  the  invisible  Church  to  depend  as 
strictly  as  did  Luther  upon  the  word,  and  in  some 
measure  upon  the  sacraments.^^ 

("yThis  distinctive  tenet  of  the  Calvinistic  theology  is  expressed  more 
or  less  sharply  in  all  the  Reformed  confessions.  In  the  Westtninster 
Confession  the  visible  and  the  invisible  Church  are  simply  placed  side  by 
side :  c.  xxv.  1,  "  The  catholic  or  universal  church,  which  is  invisible, 
consists  of  the  whole  number  of  the  elect  that  have  been,  are,  or  shall 
be  gathered  into  one,  under  Christ  the  head  thereof;  and  is  the  spouse, 
the  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  fiUeth  all  in  all."  2,  "  The  visible 
church,  which  is  also  catholic  or  universal  under  the  gospel  (not  con- 
fined to  one  nation,  as  before  under  the  law),  consists  of  all  those 
throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together  with  their 
children ;  and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Chi-ist,  the  house  and 
family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation." 
This  abstract  conception  of  the  Church,  which  stands  in  marked  contrast 
to  Luther's,  was  essentially  conditioned  by  a  very  different  estimate  of 
the  objective  worth  of  the  sacraments  as  means  of  grace.  Luther's 
sacramental  doctrine  was  a  veiy  practical  counterpoise  to  the  philosophy 
of  predestination.     This  difference  explains  to  a  large  extent  the  different 


§4]  REFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  43 

But  even  the  visible  Church  was,  for  Zwingli,  a  no- 
tion hardly  less  abstract  than  the  invisible.  It  denotes 
the  whole  number  of  those  that  outwardly  profess  the 
true  faith.  The  emphasis  upon  the  orthodoxy  of  the 
faith  excluded  the  Anabaptists  and  the  Romanists.  But 
this  universal  Church  visible  had  only  a  theoretical  in- 
religious  history  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches.  The  Re- 
formed theology  did  not  suffer  its  theory  of  the  sacraments  to  check 
the  rigid  consequences  of  the  doctrine  of  particular  election.  From  this 
point  of  view  it  is  plain  that  the  Church  could  not  come  to  be  regarded 
as  an  institute  of  salvation,  as  Lutherans  and  Anglicans  naturally  think 
of  it.  The  latter  attitude  towards  the  Church  has  conduced  to  quietism, 
pietism,  and  also  indifferentism  :  the  former  encouraged  a  keen  sense  of 
personal  responsibility  before  God,  and  also  a  strenuous  zeal  for  purify- 
ing the  Church,  which  has  often  showed  itself  in  unlovely  ways.  The 
instigation  to  Puritan  zeal  lies  again  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Church :  it 
is  the  effort  to  make  the  visible  Church  as  nearly  as  possible  conter- 
minous with  the  invisible.  This  doctrine  also  explains  the  tendency 
to  multiply  sects,  and  it  must  be  reckoned  with  in  all  attempts  to  restore 
Church  unity.  According  to  this  view,  which  is  still  potent,  the  only 
unity  which  is  important  is  in  the  nature  of  the  case  assured,  for  it  is 
the  unity  of  the  invisible  Church,  which  alone  is  the  body  and  spouse 
of  Christ.  But  even  in  relation  to  the  visible  Church  the  idea  of  unity 
or  disunity  cannot  arise,  for  it  "consists  of  all  those  throughout  the 
world  that  profess  the  true  religion,"  and  as  such  it  cannot  (on  principle) 
be  organized  —  it  also  cannot  be  disorganized.  The  question  is  only  as 
to  its  greater  or  less  purity.  According  to  this  theory,  the  only  unity 
that  can  be  practically  considered  is  unity  within  the  "  particular  church," 
the  local  congi-egation.  The  theory  is  essentially,  as  it  was  originally, 
a  theory  of  congregational  independency,  and  it  gives  no  support  to  the 
broader  Presbyterian  organization  in  presbyteries,  synods,  and  an  as- 
sembly or  council.  What  is  meant  by  the  statement  of  the  Westminster 
Conf.,  that  out  of  the  visible  Church  "there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of 
salvation"?  It  means  that  one  must  ordinarily  belong  to  a  "particular 
church."  But  in  reality  it  stands  here  as  an  unrelated  statement,  a  pious 
repetition  of  a  primitive  maxim,  and  the  Reformed  Churches  have  no 
coherent  philosophy  to  justify  it.  It  may  be  remarked  here  that  the 
preceding  statement  of  the  same  article,  to  the  effect  that  the  visible 
Church  "is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  does  not  represent 
the  prevalent  Reformed  view.  The  distinction  —  or  rather  the  contrast 
—  which  is  now  commonly  drawn  between  the  Church  and  the  kingdom 
of  God,  is  of  Reformed  origin,  and  is  even  now  supported  chiefly  by 
Reformed  scholars. 


44  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

terest :  it  was  not  organized,  it  was  incapable  of  organi- 
zation, because  it  was  impossible  to  collect  in  one  place 
the  vast  multitude  'of  professed  believers  which  was  scat- 
tered throughout  the  world.  To  all  practical  intents 
this  visible  Church  was  the  same  as  if  it  were  invisible. 
But  it  became  visible  in  the  "  particular  churches  "  (the 
local,  parish  congregations  —  Kilchhoren,  as  Zwingli 
called  them).  In  the  particular  church,  at  last,  we 
have  something  which  is  no  mere  ideal ;  for  its  mem- 
bers do  actually  meet  together,  and  that  not  as  a  mere 
numerical  aggregate,  but  as  an  organization.  It  is 
the  secular  manifestation  of  the  ideal  universal  Church, 
and  like  every  other  secular  society  it  must  have  a  defi- 
nite organization.  But  only  the  local  society  can  meet, 
and  hence  this  alone  can  be  organized.  There  can  be 
no  broader  organization  than  this,  because,  according  to 
Zwingli,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  representation  in 
the  Church  :  the  local  congregation  is  the  only  form  in 
which  the  Church  comes  to  concrete  existence,  the  only 
form  in  which  its  divine  powers  are  brought  into  effec- 
tive exercise.  The  particular  church  therefore  possesses 
the  lohole  power  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  —  not,  how- 
ever, as  though  it  were  the  body  of  Christ  (according  to 
the  primitive  view  —  see  pp.  95  sqq.),  but  as  a  "  member  " 
of  that  body,  as  a  "  member  "  of  the  whole  Church.^  As 

12  The  "  particular  church,"  defined  as  "  a  member  "  of  the  wliole,  has 
remained  one  of  the  distinctive  plirases  of  all  the  Reformed  denomina- 
tions —  including  the  English  Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists.  The 
essence  of  congregational  independency  lies  in  this  notion  of  Zwingli's, 
and  the  broader  organization  —  presbyteries,  synods,  and  council  —  which 
the  Presbyterians  have  erected  into  an  article  of  faith,  is  radically  in- 
consistent with  it.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  description  of  the 
particular  church  as  a  member  of  the  catholic  Church  which  is  Christ's 

(body  (cf.  Westminster  Conf.  cxxv.  art.  3)  is  opposed  to  the  usage  of 
Scripture,  according  to  which  only  the  individual  Christian  is  spoken 
of  as  a  member  of  Christ.     It  is  of  the  essence  of  the  Biblical  conception 


§  4]  REFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  45 

the  universal  Church  of  true  believers  (that  is,  the  in- 
visible Church,  the  bride  of  Christ)  can  never  meet  on 
earth,  and  yet  its  authority  must  be  exercised  for  the 
right  dispensation  of  the  truth,  the  particular  church 
must  of  necessity  exercise  the  whole  power  of  the  bride 
of  Christ,  —  the  power  of  decreeing  ordinances,  the 
cure  of  souls,  the  expulsion  of  sinners,  the  readmission 
of  penitents. 

And  yet,  so  strong  was  Zwingli's  emphasis  upon  the 
particularity,  the  local  character  of  the  congregation, 
that  he  did  not  advance  from  these  premises  to  the 
primitive  idea  that  the  individual  church,  acting  as 
the  bride  of  Christ,  exercises  an  ecumenical  authority : 
for  him  it  has  only  local  authority,  because  after  all  it 
is  only  a  "  particular  church,"  only  a  '*  member  "  of  the 
whole.  Yet  it  exercises  the  authority  of  Christ,  which 
cannot  be  a  local  authority.  What  a  contradiction  this 
involves !  , 

The  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  as  is  apparent  ^ 
from  the  whole  of  this  reasoning,  belongs  not  to  the 
minister  of  the  word  (as  in  the  Lutheran  view),  nor  to 
the  officer  as  such  (the  Catholic  view),  nor  indeed  to  the     , 
individual  at  all  (as  in  the  primitive  view  it  must),  hut  / 
to  the  congregation.     Here  we  have  for  the  first  time  an 
expression  of   the  congregational  principle  which   has 
dominated  the  whole  history  of  the  Reformed  Churches. 
It  is  in  his  estimate  of  the  place  and  importance  of  the 
individual  disciple  that  Zwingli  most  plainly  contradicts  ; 
the  Scriptural  view.     In  the  primitive  view  it  is  the  in-  • 
dividual  only  that  can  be  the  organ  of  ecclesiastical  ^ 
authority,  and  that  by  reason  of  the  charismatic  endow- 
that  the  relationship  is  personal;   only  a  person  can  be  a  member  of 
Christ's  body,  and  the  place  cannot  be  taken  by  an  organization,  as 
a  juristic  person. 


46  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

ment  which  he  has  from  Christ  the  head  of  the  Church. 
The  organization  can  possess  no  charisma.  With  ZwingH, 
on  the  contrary,  the  individual  disciple,  though  he  is  the 
unit  of  the  invisible  Church,  is  not  the  unit  of  the  vis- 
ible :  the  only  unit,  "  member,"  and  organ  of  the  visible 
Church  is  the  congregation.  It  is  the  congregation  as 
such  —  the  congregation  as  it  is  met  together,  for  Zwingli 
rightly  refuses  to  recognize  any  delegated  or  represen- 
tative authority  in  the  Church.  And  yet  it  is  not  a?iy 
gathering  of  disciples  in  Christ's  name  that  constitutes  a 
congregation  (Kilchhore)  and  can  exercise  ecclesiastical 
authority.  In  this  Zwingli  flatly  opposes  himself  to  the 
Scripture,  and  he  is  obliged  to  explain  away  Christ's 
promise  in  Matt.  18 :  20,  making  it  refer  to  the  invisible 
Church,  not  to  the  visible,  to  which  alone  ecclesiastical 
power  belongs. ^^  Two  or  three  who  are  met  together  in 
Christ's  name  do  not  constitute  a  church,  though  Christ 
be  in  the  midst  of  them.  Though  a  great  multitude 
were  met  together  —  even  the  whole  multitude  of  be- 
lievers —  they  would  have  no  ecclesiastical  authority, 
for  they  would  not  be  a  particular  church.  It  is  clear 
that  the  notes  which  authenticate  any  particular  as- 
sembly of  Christians  as  an  organ  of  ecclesiastical  author- 
ity are  external  notes.  Before  it  need  be  asked  whether 
Christ  is  in  their  midst,  it  must  be  determined  whether 
the  gathering  is  formally  constituted  as  a  particular 
:  church  —  parish  or  Kilchhore.  Precisely  what  elements 
'must  be  present  to  constitute  a  legal  organization  it 
was  left  to  Calvhi  to  prescribe ;  but  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  principle  was  already  fixed  by  Zwingli. 
This  is  essentially  the  Catholic  position  :  different  as 
were  the  forms  which  each  required  for  the  legal  con- 
stitution of  the   Church,  they  were  both  agreed  that 

^^  For  refei'ences  see  Sohin,  particularly  p.  639,  n.  12. 


§4]  REFORMATION   PRINCIPLES  47 

it  was  the  form  which  legally  determined  whether 
any  particular  assembly  of  Christians  was  a  church 
or  not. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  how  largely  Zwingli's  line 
of  reasoning  was  determined  by  practical  considerations. 
On  the  one  hand  it  was  meant  as  an  apology  for  his  ^o- 
sition  as  against  the  claims  of  Rome  ;  on  the  other,  it  was 
designed  to  protect  the  order  of  the  Church  as  against 
the  Anabaptist  sectaries.  According  to  Zwingli's  rea- 
soning, the  Roman  Church  (which  was  only  a  particular 
church  or  Kilchhore)  had  no  ecumenical  authority,  but 
only  a  local  authority  like  every  other  church  :  it  could 
not  legislate  for  the  whole  of  Christendom,  as  it  claimed 
to  do,  but  only  for  itself,  —  granting  that  it  was  a 
church  at  all.  On  the  other  hand  the  formless  multi- 
tudes of  Anabaptist  enthusiasts  were  not  authorized  to 
legislate  even  for  themselves,  for  they  did  not  constitute 
a  particular  church  or  Kilchhore.  The  same  argument 
availed  against  the  pope  and  the  Councils.  The  pope 
w^ith  the  whole  college  of  cardinals,  or  even  with  a  uni- 
versal council,  had  no  ecumenical  authority,  —  neither 
he  nor  they  had  any  authority  at  all,  because  they  did 
not  constitute  a  "  particular  church,"  and,  as  we  have 
seen,  Zwingli  entirely  repudiated  for  the  Church  the 
notion  of  representative  authority.  It  was  the  repre- 
sentative principle  that  was  then  relied  upon  to  justify 
the  Roman  claim.  Rome  was  the  representative  Church ; 
the  Councils  were  authoritative  because  —  and  in  so  far 
as  —  they  were  representative.  This  was  not  a  Cath- 
olic idea :  on  the  contrary  it  was  the  pagan  notion  of 
secular  g-overnment  which  the  Catholic  Church  had 
succeeded  in  abolishing  even  from  the  secular  sphere. 
It  was  essentially  the  idea  of  the  social  contract, 
which   the   Renascence    rediscovered,    and   which   was 


48  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

destined  to  prevail  more  and  more  both  in  Church 
and  State. 

There  are  several  other  significant  peculiarities  of 
Zwingli's  system  which  are  more  or  less  closely  related 
to  the  above  line  of  reasoning.  It  is  an  obvious  deduc- 
tion that  the  authority  which  is  exercised  by  the  partic- 
ular church,  though  it  is  the  authority  of  the  bride  of 
Christ,  is  not  in  reality  the  authority  of  Church  gov- 
ernment, but  only  of  congregational  government  —  that 
is  to  say,  denominational  government.  Government  was 
regarded  chiefly  as  discipline,  and  so  continues  to  be  in 
all  Reformed  Churches.  But  the  discipline  which  was 
exercised  by  the  congregation  did  not  exclude  from  the 
Church  visible,  but  only  from  the  congregation.  The 
power  of  the  keys,  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  was 
not  a  part  of  government,  and  it  did  not  belong  to  the 
congregation,  but  to  the  pastor  or  preacher.  It  was  in 
reality  no  power  or  authority  at  all,  but  merely  a  gen- 
eral declaration  of  the  terms  upon  which  salvation  (for- 
giveness of  sins)  was  —  or  was  not  —  to  be  secured  :  — 
that  is,  it  was  identical  with  preaching,  and  the  preacher 
as  such,  having  no  authority  in  matters  of  discipline 
and  government,  was  not  authorized  to  apply  the  gene- 
ral declaration  to  a  particular  case.  The  exceedingly 
abstract  character  of  Zwingli's  philosophy  is  here 
especially  in  evidence.-^* 

This  line  of  thought  explains,  too,  the  contrast  that 
Zwingli  drew  between  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and 
government.  As  the  preacher  has  no  authority  over 
discipline  or  government,  so  the   congregation  on   its 

1*  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  reflects  this  notion  in  the  "  Declara- 
tion of  Absolution  "  for  the  daily  offices.  On  the  other  hand  the  general 
absolution  in  the  Communion  office,  and  still  more  the  particular  absolu- 
tion in  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  show  what  various  influences  were  at 
work  in  the  Anglican  Church. 


§4]  REFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  49 

part  has  no  authority  to  minister  the  word.  It  has 
autiiority  over  the  preacher's  office  (including  appoint- 
ment and  dismissal),  for  this  belongs  to  government; 
it  has  authority  to  establish  by  decree  a  form  of  faith ; 
but,  paradoxically  enough,  it  is  not  empowered  to  exer- 
cise the  ministry  of  the  word.  These  two  functions,  the 
ministry  of  the  word  and  government,  were  here  sepa- 
rated for  the  first  time.  Notwithstanding  Calvin's  modi- 
fication of  the  theory,  they  are  still  regarded  in  the 
Reformed  Churches  as  contrasted  functions. 

It  is  well  known  that  Zwingli  was  never  able  to  put  ( 
his  theory  of  Church  government  into  effect.  To  the  ' 
republican  magistrates  of  Zurich,  the  Council  of  Two 
Hundred,  he  turned  over  the  whole  government  of  the 
Church,  including  excommunication :  he  could  trust,  he 
said,  the  astute  councillors  to  govern  wisely,  as  he  could 
not  trust  "the  simple  congregation  or  church."  The 
Council  governed  in  the  name,  and  with  the  assumed 
consent,  of  the  Church ;  but  it  really  governed  abso- 
lutely, and  the  power  which  was  placed  in  its  hands  in 
the  beginning  it  had  no  mind  to  relinquish. 

It  was  Calvin  that  put  into  practical  operation  Zwing-j 
li's  theoretical  program  of  Church  government,  giving 
it  thereby  a  definite  and  permanent  form.  At  the  same 
time  his  strong  practical  sense,  and  particularly  his 
genius  for  organization,  led  him  to  make  modifications, 
which  in  a  few  instances  amounted  to  a  contradiction 
of  one  or  another  of  Zwingli's  doctrines. 

What  Zwingli  and  other  Reformed  leaders  were 
unable  or  unwilling  to  do,  in  the  matter  of  according 
the  power  of  ecclesiastical  government  to  the  Church, 
Calvin  in  a  measure  accomplished.  The  magistrates  of 
Geneva,  however,  were  naturally  determined  to  retain  the 


50  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

power  which  they  held,  and  it  was  not  without  a  severe 
struggle  that  Calvin  succeeded  in  vindicating  to  the 
Church  the  most  essential  elements  of  spiritual  govern- 
ment, particularly  the  exercise  of  the  ban.  The  solution 
was  an  inadequate  one,  for  though  the  Consistory  (the 
ecclesiastical  organ  which  Calvin  established)  exercised 
discipline  over  the  laity,  the  civic  Council  retained  the 
exclusive  right  of  disciplining  the  clergy,  together  with 
the  power  of  appointment  to  office  and  the  exercise  of 
other  important  ecclesiastical  functions.  Moreover,  the 
twelve  "  elders  "  that  composed  the  Consistory  were  ap- 
pointed by  the  councillors  out  of  their  own  number 
and  were  officially  known  as  their  deputies,  though 
Calvin  insisted  upon  regarding  them  as  representatives 
of  the  Church.  It  was  Calvin  himself,  in  his  personal 
capacity  as  spiritual  leader  of  the  Genevan  Church,  who 
struck  the  true  note  of  independence  in  spiritual  affairs 
which  has  broadly  characterized  the  Reformed  Churches. 
The  Scotch  Churches  for  instance,  whether  Free  or 
Established,  have  furnished  a  notable  example  of  spir- 
itual independence  and  autonomy. 

It  would  be  an  anachronism,  however,  to  attribute  to 
Calvin  our  modern  ideal  of  separation  of  Church  and 
State.  His  Church,  legally  organized  as  it  was,  and 
that,  too,  after  the  pattern  of  civil  government,  partook 
too  much  of  the  nature  of  the  state,  and  moved  too 
.nearly  on  the  same  plane,  to  permit  of  independence 

I  j without  rivalry.  Calvin's  own  ideal  was  a  Church 
/which  should  be  the  official  conscience  of  the  state:  — 
his  was  essentially  the  ideal  of  a  theocracy.  Complete 
independence  from  the  state  was  naE^~ar^eformed  ideal : 
it  was  developed  by  the  practical  emergency  in  which 
those  Churches  found  themselves  that  were  obliged,  like 
the    English   Presbyterians,   to   assert   their   principles 


§  4]  REFORMATION   PRINCIPLES  51 

against  a  hostile  government. ^^  The  question  of  the 
relation  of  the  Church  to  the  Civil  Magistrate  occupies 
an  important  place  in  all  the  Reformed  confessions,  for 
like  all  other  questions  of  government  it  is  regarded  as 
an  article  of  faith  !  The  definition  which  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  gives  on  this  point  is  no  longer  service- 
able in  view  of  American  conditions,  and  it  has  been 
altered  by  all  the  Reformed  Churches  which  accept  this 
standard. 

In  the  very  fact  of  putting  into  practical  execution 
Zwingli's  theory  of  Church  government,  Calvin  found 
himself  obliged  to  make  two  important  modifications  of 
it.  In  the  first  place,  he  gave  a  religious  sanction  to 
the  power  of  government  as  exercised  by  the  congrega- 
tion, by  recognizing  (unlike  Zwingli)  that  ecclesiastical 
government  or  discipline  is  an  exercise  of  the  power  of 
the  keys  which  was  accorded  by  Christ  to  his  Church. 
In  the  second  place,  he  furnished  the  practical  ma- 
chinery for  the  exercise  of  discipline  by  the  congrega- 

15  We  have  a  mighty  contempt  nowadays  for  the  benighted  ignorancA 
which  failed  to  recognize  the  self-evident  truth  that  Chm'ch  and  State  arei 
in  their  natm'e  separate  and  must  be  independent.     But  I  take  it  that  we] 
have  still  no  deeply  reasoned  solution  of  this  vexed  problem  of  our  fore- 
fathers ; — we  have  furnished  no  new  solution  for  it  at  all,   but  have' 
simply  contrived  to  ignore  it.     We  take  as  a  matter  of  course  what  is  now 
so  obviously  a  matter  of  necessity.     At  bottom  it  is  the  state  that  ignores 
the  Church.     In  our  modern  states,  and  especially  in  America,  Church  ' 
and  State   are  no  longer  coordinates — -they   cannot  be   related  to   one' 
another,  neither  can  they  be  opposed  —  simply  because  there  is  no  single ' 
Church  in  any  way  commensurate  with  the  state.     All  that  the  state  ul 
recognizes  is  a   multitude  of  religious  societies,  —  Christian  or  other,  it  i 
makes  no  difference.     If  in  America,  for  instance,  there  should  be  but  one 
organic  Christian  society  —  one  Church  —  1  fancy  that  the  old  problem  '. 
must  again  be  recognized  as  a  burning  one.     There  is  no  solution  for  it  ex-  , 
cept  in  the  sincere  recognition  that  the  Church  is  a  spiritual  entity,  and  as  i 
such  can  never  be  coordinate  with  the  state.     But  that  recognition  at  the 
same  time  involves  the  inference  that  the  Church  cannot  be  organized  in 
the  terms  of  a  secular  society,  that  is,  in  terms  of  the  state. 


52  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

tion,   by   recognizing    the  principle    of   representative 
government,  which  Zwingli  had  denied. 

For  all  this,  however,  he  did  not  do  away  with  the 
radical  distinction  that  Zwingli  had  drawn  between  the 
two  functions  of  ministering  the  word  and  of  govern- 
ment. The  pastor  or  teacher  as  such  did  not  have  an}' 
power  of  government,  simply  because  he  was  not  re- 
garded as  a  representative  of  the  congregation  ;  and  the 
power  of  government  which  was  exercised  by  the  con- 
gregation or  their  representatives  was  not  grounded  (as 
by  Luther)  upon  the  fact  that  they  were  all  taught  of 
God,  and  so  essentially  empowered  to  perform  all  acts 
belonging  to  the  ministry  of  the  word.  It  is  manifest 
that  a  power  such  as  this  could  never  be  delegated. 
The  two  functions  remain  essentially  separate :  to  each 
one  of  them  Calvin  ascribes  the  power  of  the  keys,  and 
in  that  he  is  therefore  obliged  to  distinguish  two  sorts 
of  authority.  The  first  is  the  general  authority  that 
belongs  to  the  ministry  of  the  word  in  the  proclama- 
tion of  the  Gospel  —  just  as  Zwingli  understood  it. 
According  to  Calvin  it  is  only  this  general  authority 
(which  does  not  include  discipline)  that  is  intimated  in 
Matt.  16  :  19  and  John  20  :  23.  But  in  Matt.  18  :  18  it 
was  impossible  to  ignore  the  reference  to  discipline  —  in 
particular  to  excommunication  —  and  this  power,  in 
conformity  with  the  context,  Calvin  attributes  to  the 
Church.  There  is  no  exegetical  ground  for  this  distinc- 
,:tion.     But  Calvin's  thought  is,  that  the  power  of  bind- 

Iing  and  loosing  which  is  given  to  Peter  in  Matt.  16  :  19 
,,  (John  20  :  23)  is  a  personal  gift,  and  is  expressly  con- 
ditioned upon  the  personal  apprehension  of  the  Gospel. 
Whereas  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  mentioned  in 
Matt.  18  :  18  is  not  a  personal  gift,  for  it  is  given  to  the 
Church,  and  it  is  not  expressly  associated  with  the  word. 


§4]  EEFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  53 

It  is  therefore  a  different  power  which  is  spoken  of. 
The  weak  point  in  this  reasoning  is  the  minor  premise 
(cf.  §  8,  pp.  120  sq.).  Calvin's  meaning,  however,  is  per- 
fectly plain,  as  he  expounds  it  in  the  Institutes  (ed.  1559) 
lib.  IV.  c.  10.  He  explains  the  first  to  be  not  so  much 
a  power  as  a  ministry,  since  it  consists  merely  in  freeing 
souls  from  the  bonds  of  sin  by  the  proclamation  of  the 
Gospel.  This  is  properly  the  cure  of  souls.  The  other 
power  —  that  of  discipline  —  does  not  minister  to  the  cure 
of  souls :  it  consists  in  the  exclusion  of  sinners  from  the 
Church,  and  it  is  exercised  not  so  much  for  the  sake  of 
saving  the  offender  as  for  maintaining  the  purity  of  the 
congregation.  This,  according  to  Calvin,  is  the  essen-! 
tial  function  of  Church  government  or  jurisdiction. 
Here  he  strikes  a  note  which  has  been  characteristic 
of  the  Reformed  Churches.  This  jurisdiction  belongs  toL 
the  Church  as  a  corporation,  as  a  juristic  person,  not  to' 
the  disciples  as  individuals.  Calvin's  meaning  is  re- 
vealed by  his  explanation  that  the  power  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin  is  here  transferred  to  the  flock  of  Christ.  The 
endeavor  to  explain  the  government  of  the  Christian 
Church  after  the  analogy  of  Jewish  —  particularly  late 
rabbinical  —  institutions  has  ever  since  been  a  charac- 
teristic of  the  Reformed  Churches. 

As  has  been  remarked  above,  Calvin's  second  modifi- 
cation of  Zwingli's  theory  was  the  organization  of  the 
Church  in  the  terms  of  representative  government. 
Given  the  premise  —  which  was  furnished  by  Zwingli 
—  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  belongs  to  it  as 
a  legally  organized  body,  nothing  could  be  more  natu- 
ral and  logical  than  Calvin's  deduction,  that  the  power 
which  practically  could  not  be  exercised  by  all  must  be 
exercised  by  a  few  as  their  representatives.  If  the 
Roman   Catholic   Church   was  obliged   to  remodel    its 


54  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

claim  upon  the  representative  principle,  how  much 
more  must  Calvin  be  influenced  by  it,  who  was  found- 
ing a  new  order  in  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  his  age. 
This  was,  in  fact,  one  of  the  most  influential  ideas  of  the 
time,  and  it  is  therefore  not  strange  that  the  reformers 
found  a  sanction  for  it  in  Scripture. 

Influential  as  this  idea  was  among  advanced  thinkers 
of  the  Renascence,  it  was  originally  a  pagan  notion  and 
essentially  a  rationalistic  one.  Before  it  could  become 
the  ruling  force  it  is  to-day,  it  had  to  overcome  the  pre- 
judice which  the  whole  period  of  the  Middle  Ages  had 
intrenched  in  power;  to  this  end  it  had  to  gain  the 
adhesion  of  the  multitude,  and  it  needed  above  all  tliat 
religious  sanction  which  Calvin  gave  it  by  incorporating 
it  in  a  system  of  Church  government.  This  principle, 
which  was  first  applied  to  the  congregation,  in  the 
establishment  of  the  local  presbytery  (the  "  session  ")  of 
lay  elders,  the  direct  representatives  of  the  people,  was 
afterwards  logically  extended  to  the  "  classical  presby- 
tery," representing  a  number  of  congregations,  and  to 
the  council  (general  assembly),  representing  the  whole 
denomination.  It  is  a  system  which  is  capable  of  indefi- 
nite expansion  without  weakness :  it  is  at  once  popular 
and  strong.  It  is  a  model  of  secular  government ;  but 
it  is  more  utterly  lacking  in  Scriptural  analogy,  is  more 
thoroughly  opposed  to  the  New  Testament  idea  of  the 
Church,  than  any  of  the  rival  forms  of  government 
which  have  been  developed  from  Catholic  principles. 
Yet  this  whole  system  and  every  detail  of  it  was  —  and 
is  —  prescribed  jure  divino ;  and  in  all  the  Reformed 
confessions  it  is  erected  into  an  article  of  faith  on  a  par 
with  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  !  ^^     It  is  not  to  be  won- 

1^  Except  in  the  case  of  the  Independents  (Baptists  and  Congre- 
gationalists),  who  have  a  jure  divino  system  of  their  own,  icithout  pres- 


§4]  REFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  55 

dered  that  the  Reformed  Churches  have  been  influen- 
tial in  estabhshing  that  principle  of  government  in  the 
state  which  they  maintained  with  so  much  zeal  in  the 
Church. 

byteries  and  ruling  elders.  Besides,  the  Congregationalists  have  lately 
used  their  freedom  to  rid  themselves  of  the  whole  Calvinistic  theology, 
and  with  it,  of  Calvin's  doctrine  of  Church  government.  The  statement 
in  the  text  is  intentionally  startling,  but  it  is  no  exaggeration.  The  fact 
here  referred  to  is  a  characteristic  in  which  the  Reformed  confessions  of 
faith  excel,  but  which  in  some  degree  they  share  with  all  Protestant 
confessions  of  historic  importance,  and  with  the  Roman  creeds.  The  chief 
fault  is  the  total  lack  of  perspective  in  the  statement  of  the  Christian 
faith,  the  lack  of  any  formal  distinction  between  propositions  which  are 
articles  of  faith,  and  those  which  can  only  be  matters  of  belief  or  opinion. 
It  is  not  affirmed  here  that  all  the  propositions  of  the  creed  —  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  by  presbyteries,  for  example  —  have  been  accounted 
of  equal  importance  with  the  most  fundamental  truths  of  theology ;  but 
in  so  far  as  they  are  legally  enjoined  as  articles  of  faith  they  are  placed  pre- 
cisely upon  a  par,  —  unless  it  could  be  claimed  that  the  1st  and  2d  ai-ticles 
are  by  position  more  important  than,  for  instance,  the  31st.  The  old 
confessions  are  still  generally  retained ;  —  among  British  and  American 
Presbyterians  it  is  the  Westminster  Confession,  with  slight  alterations. 
But  their  significance  has  been  essentially  changed;  partly  by  law,  and 
partly  by  usage.  By  law  the  terms  of  subscription  have  been  altered 
from  explicit  adherence  to  every  article,  to  acceptance  of  the  system  of 
doctrine  as  a  whole.  There  is  no  formal  criterion  to  determine  what 
belongs  essentially  to  the  system  and  what  does  not.  Is  the  doctrine  of 
Church  organization  an  essential  part  of  the  Calvinistic  system  ?  Or  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  verbal  inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures  ?  It  is  left  for  the 
presbyteries  to  decide  in  each  individual  case.  Of  so  little  avail  is  the 
legal  definition  of  faith  !  By  usage  subscription  to  the  confession  is  now 
required  only  of  officers  —  including  the  lay  elders.  The  faith  which  is 
essential  for  the  admission  of  lay  persons  to  the  Church  is  not  formally 
defined :  it  is  left  to  the  decision  of  the  individual  congregations,  repre- 
sented by  the  session.  This  state  of  affairs  is  broadly  characteristic  of 
all  the  greater  Presbyterian  bodies.  It  may  be  said  of  them,  too,  that 
few  of  their  teachers  will  now  affirm  that  their  system  of  government  is 
precisely  and  indubitably  authenticated  by  Scripture ;  still  fewer  believe 
that  this  or  any  other  forni  of  government  is  essential  to  the  valid 
organization  of  the  Church.  All  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  America ; 
have  dropped  the  Westminster  Form  of  Church  Government  and  Discipline, ' 
and  most  of  them  are  therefore  left  without  a  creedal  statement  of  the 
requisite  form  of  congregational  organization,  though  the  general  organi-j 
zation  in  synods  and  councils  is  prescribed  in  the  Confession  (c.  xxxi.). 


56  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

It  was  not  as  a  theologian  or  a  theorist  that  Calvin 
established  this  system  of  government,  but  as  a  prac- 
tical politician  and  ruler.  The  fons  et  origo  was  the 
model  Church  which  he  organized  at  Geneva.  A  Church 
which  exhibited  so  strong  a  government,  and  so  pure  a 
discipline,  could  not  fail  to  be  copied  wherever  the  Re- 
formed theology  was  received.     No  one  who  is  at  all 

At  the  same  time  there  still  exist  vestiges  of  the  genuine  old  Presby- 
terianism,  particularly  among  the  direct  ofE-shoots  of  the  Scottish  Churches 
in  America.  These  people  oblige  all  members  to  precise  agreement 
upon  every  article  of  the  confession;  and  the  Westminster  standards, 
which  prove  too  strait  for  their  brethren  of  the  larger  Churches,  are  too 
liberal  for  them.  For  example :  in  1858  the  Associate  and  the  Associate 
Reformed  Churches  "  united  "  and  made  three  sects !  —  taking  the  dis- 
sident remnants  into  account.  At  that  time  the  new  organization  added 
to  the  Westminster  standards  a  long  creedal  statement  called  The  Testi- 
mony, which  is  still  in  force.  A  few  sentences  from  the  Preface  will 
explain  the  motive  of  such  an  addition.  "  We  have  said  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  church  to  exhibit,  plainly,  and  explicitly,  all  the  principles 
of  her  profession,  in  a  published  creed  or  confession.  This  duty  was 
discharged  with  a  high  degree  of  faithfulness  by  the  fi'amers  of  the 
Westminster  Confession.  It  should,  however,  not  be  forgotten,  that 
the  church  of  God,  while  '  holding  fast  that  whereunto  she  has  attained,' 
should  also  strive  to  be  making  progress  in  the  attainment  of  divine 
truth.  .  .  .  Under  a  solemn  conviction  of  our  duty,  in  this  respect,  we, 
as  a  church,  have,  in  the  following  document,  set  forth  our  views  on 
certain  points,  which  were  either  not  distinctbj  introduced  into  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  by  its  framers,  or  not  exhibited  with  that  fullness  and 
explicitness,  which  the  circumstances  of  the  church,  the  times  in  which 
we  live,  and  the  views  and  practices  of  those  around  us,  demand  of  us 
as  witnesses  of  the  truth."  This  is  highly  significant  of  the  original 
Reformed  attitude  in  the  matter  of  creeds,  though  it  is  only  the  Scottish 
Presbyterians  that  have  carried  legalistic  rigorism  to  so  great  an  extreme 
as  in  the  case  before  us.  This  Testimony,  besides  the  "more  explicit" 
statement  of  common  articles  of  Calvinistic  doctrine,  makes  several 
material  additions:  among  them,  the  statement  that  secret  societies  are 
inconsistent  with  Christianity,  that  slave-holding  is  a  violation  of  the 
law  of  God,  "  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  songs  contained  in  the 
book  of  Psalms  be  sung  in  his  worship,  ...  to  the  exclusion  of  devotional 
compositions  of  uninspired  men,"  "  that  public  social  covenanting  is  a 
moral  duty,"  and  that  no  communion  "in  sealing  ordinances"  is  to  be 
held  with  those  that  think  otherwise  on  any  of  these  points. 


§4]  REFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  57 

acquainted  with  the  history  of  Calvin's  organization  of 
this  Church  can  ignore  the  fact  that  his  work  there  was 
rather  the  solution  of  a  practical  problem  than  the  appli- 
cation of  an  exegetical  theory.  What  he  did  was  com- 
paratively simple ;  the  congregational  organization  that 
he  founded  had  substantially  but  two  factors,  correspond- 
ing to  the  two  contrasted  functions  of  the  Church  :  the 
ministry  of  the  word,  and  government.  The  ministry 
of  the  word  was  exercised  by  two  officers,  the  pastor  and 
the  doctor  (or  teacher).  It  was  not  specified  how  many 
pastors  there  must  be  in  a  congregation.^^  Government 
was  exercised  by  lay  or  ruling  elders,  of  whom  there 
must  be  several  in  the  congregation,  constituting  the 
consistory  (in  Scotland  called  the  session).  The  theo- 
retical distinction  between  the  ruling  and  the  teaching 
office  suffered  a  practical  exception  in  the  fact  that  the 
pastor  had  a  seat  in  the  consistory,  and  indeed  the  presi- 
dency in  it.  No  act  of  government  or  discipline  might 
be  performed  except  in  conformity  to  God's  word,  and 
as  the  official  interpreter  of  the  word  the  pastor  had  a 
place  in  the  governing  council.  To  these  three  —  or 
substantially  two  —  offices  was  adjoined,  as  a  perfectly 
perfunctory  addendum,  the  deacon.  Deacons  were  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament,  so  there  must  be  deacons. 
The  Reformed  deacons  were  laymen  who  administered 
the  alms.  But  much  of  the  charitable  work  that  had 
originally  been  done  by  the  Church  had  been  taken  over 

"  The  distinction  between  these  two  offices  was  slight.  The  pastor 
had  to  do  chiefly  with  what  we  now  commonly  understand  by  the  ex- 
pression "  pastoral  care,"  including  the  conduct  of  public  worship;  the 
doctor  had  to  do  chiefly  with  instruction,  including  preaching.  The 
Scottish  and  English  Presbyterians  explained  that  these  two  oflices  might 
be  united  in  one  person,  and  in  practice  they  made  no  distinction  between 
them.  The  New  England  Congregationalists,  on  the  other  hand,  long 
maintained  the  custom  of  having  both  a  pastor  and  a  doctor  in  every 
congregation. 


58  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

by  the  state ;  moreover,  the  Protestant  Churches  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation  were  not  much  distinguished 
for  practical  philanthropy ;  so  the  work  that  fell  to  the 
deacons  bore  a  sorry  contrast  to  the  important  func- 
tions performed  by  these  officers  in  the  early  Church. 
In  reality  the  office  had  no  more  significance  than  it  had 
in  the  English  Church,  where  it  was  retained  by  force 
of  precedent  as  a  stage  of  probation  for  the  priesthood.'^ 
Ignoring  for  the  moment  the  office  of  deacon,  and  the 
unimportant  distinction  between  pastor  and  doctor,  it  is 
evident  that  Calvin's  Church  must  have  had  just  such 
officers  as  he  gave  it,  even  if  the  New  Testament  had  no 
hints  to  offer  on  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion. Without  the  preaching  office  the  Church  of  Christ 
can  hardly  be  conceived,  and  it  was  of  course  this  office 
that  all  the  reformers  emphatically  exalted.  The  lay 
representatives  w^ere  obviously  necessary  to  give  practi- 
cal effect  to  Zwingli's  doctrine  that  government  belonged 
to  the  congregation  as  such.  Besides,  in  establishing 
this  office  Calvin  was  evidently  influenced  by  the  models 
of  civil  government.'^  He  expressly  likens  the  consis- 
tory of  lay  elders  to  the  civic  council.  At  all  events 
the  system  was  not  established  by  force  of  proof  texts, 
nor  were  the  Scriptural  proofs  which  were  afterwards 
sought  out  to  justify  it  severely  scrutinized  by  Calvin's 

^8  In  America  the  Presbyterian  Churches  frequently  fail  to  appoint 
deacons.  When  there  are  deacons  in  a  congregation  they  pass  the  plate. 
They  have  no  function  in  relation  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  nor  any  part  in 
government  or  teaching.  In  the  Congregational  Churches  (including  the 
Baptist)  the  deacons  perform  the  same  insignificant  ministry ;  but  since 
in  these  Churches  there  is  no  other  lay  officer  —  no  other  officer,  that  is, 
except  the  pastor  —  the  deacons  are  selected  from  among  the  chief  persons 
in  the  congregation.  Owing  to  the  democratic  constitution  of  these 
Churches,  which  allows  of  no  government  by  representation,  the  deacons 
actually  (though  not  in  theory)  enjoy  the  leadership  in  congregational 
affairs  which  naturally  falls  to  official  persons. 

19  Cf.  Instit.  lib.  IV.  caps.  11  and  12. 


§4]  REFORMATION  PRINCIPLES  59 

contemporaries.  The  system  was  acceptable  to  the  ma- 
jority, and  it  was  maintained  against  the  minority  by 
the  secular  arm. 

Yet  Calvin  himself  claimed  for  this  scheme  divine 
authority.  Precisely  these  offices,  and  these  offices  alone,  I 
are,  according  to  Calvin,  prescribed  by  Scripture  as  of] 
perpetual  obligation  in  the  Church,  The  offices  of 
apostle  and  prophet  were  temporary,  belonging  only  to 
the  first  age  of  the  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
office  of  bishop  or  presbyter  (which  Calvin  regarded  as 
identical  and  as  equivalent  to  pastor)  is  a  perpetual 
office.  The  office  of  teacher  is  also  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case 
must  be  perpetual.  These  are  the  spiritual  offices.  But 
in  1  Tim.  5:17  Calvin  saw  an  intimation  of  another 
kind  of  presbyter,  who  did  not  labor  like  the  bishop- 
presbyter  in  the  word  and  in  doctrine,  but  was  dis- 
tinguished by  the  fact  that  he  ruled  well.  The 
"governments"  mentioned  in  1  Cor.  12:28  were  sup^ 
posed  to  refer  to  the  same  office.  The  "  helps  "  men- 
tioned in  the  same  verse  described  the  deacon's  office. 
These  were  the  principal  proofs  for  the  distinctive  in- 
stitution of  Presbyterianism.  A  narrower  ground  is 
hardly  conceivable  than  that  on  which  the  English 
Dissenters  waged  their  long  battle  with  the  Church. 
The  proofs  which  were  later  adduced  in  support  of  gov- 
ernment by  classical  presbyteries  were  of  a  still  more 
precarious  character.^" 

2"  There  is  a  Waldensiaii  tradition  of  fabulous  character  which  for  a 
long  time  past  has  been  popularly  regarded  as  an  important  historical 
support  for  the  whole  system  of  Presbyterian  government.  The  fable 
narrates  that  in  the  time  of  Pope  Sylvester,  when  the  Church  was  first 
enticed  from  the  way  of  pure  doctrine  and  discipline  by  the  imperial 
favor  of  Constantine,  the  predecessors  of  the  Waldensians  separated  them- 
selves fi-om  the  worldly  professors  of  Christianity,  and  retired  into  the 


/[ 


60  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

The  constitution  which  Calvin  gave  to  the  Church  at 
Geneva  corresponds  precisely  to  the  Reformed  idea  of 
the  visible  Church.  The  visible  Church  is  the  legally 
constituted  congregation,  and  the  authority  of  the  vis- 
ible Church  is  the  legally  exercised  authority  of  the 
congregation  as  a  self-governing  corporation.^^ 

Calvin  did  recognize  (unlike  Zwingli  and  in  con- 
formity with  Christ's  word)  that  the  visible  Church 
is  found  wherever  even  two  or  three  are  gathered  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  But  the  admitted  proposition 
was  rendered  void  by  his  doctrine  of  Church  organiza- 
tion. If  it  is  essential  to  the  Church  that  it  be  organ- 
ized with  pastors,  elders,  deacons,  and  teachers,  it  is  not 
every  gathering  for  Christian  worship  or  instruction  that 
can  be  deemed  a  manifestation  of  the  visible  Church, 
but  only  the  organized  congregation,  just  as  in  Zwingli' s 
view.  This  consequence  has  been  drawn  by  the  Re- 
formed party.  Calvin  himself,  following  Luther,  men- 
tioned only  the  word  and  the  sacraments  as  the  notes  of 
the  visible  Church.  But  the  Reformed  confessions  have 
logically  carried  out  Calvin's  line  of  thought,  requiring, 
as  the  third  note,  the  right  Church  discipline,  that  is, 

remote  valleys  of  Piedmont,  where  they  preserved  unimpaired  the  primi- 
tive norm  of  Church  doctrine  and  government,  which  the  Catholic  Church 
quickly  lost.  Finally,  the  Waldensian  refugees  who  found  asylum  in 
Geneva  imparted  this  system  of  government  to  Calvin.  The  story  is  of 
course  absurd,  for  there  is  no  trace  of  the  sect  before  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, and  they  knew  no  other  than  the  episcopal  form  of  government 
until  the  sixteenth  century,  when  the  AValdensian  refugees,  returning 
from  Switzerland,  brought  with  them  the  theology  and  polity  of  Calvin. 
Nevertheless  the  support  that  the  Waldensian  missions  receive  from 
Scottish  and  American  Presbyterians  is  still  prompted  in  part  by  this 
superstition.  The  facts  have  often  been  published  by  German  and 
English  historians,  and  they  are  stated  with  perfect  candor  by  Professor 
Comba,  of  the  Waldensian  School  of  Theology  in  Florence,  in  his  His- 
toire  de  Vaudois,  pp.  289  sqq.  and  passim. 
21  Cf.  Sohm,  p.  645. 


§4]  REFORMATION   PRINCIPLES  61 

Church  government  with  lay  elders,  etc.  A  particular  f 
legal  constitution  is  necessary  in  order  that  the  gather- 
ing of  believers  may  be  a  Church.  This  order  is  pre- 
scribed by  divine  law.  This  is  the  assumption  of  most 
of  the  Reformed  confessions.  Church  government  thus 
becomes,  as  it  is  for  Catholicism,  an  object  offaithxy 

About  the  Anglican  principles  of  Church  government 
no  such  succinct  and  definite  statement  can  be  made  as 
in  the  case  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed.  Not  one 
principle  but  many  have  contended  for  the  mastery 
within  the  English  Church  ;  and  withal,  the  Church  has 
no  dogma  on  the  subject.  Neither  the  Lutheran,  the 
Reformed,  nor  the  Catholic  principle  of  Church  govern- 
ment has  been  authoritatively  recognized,  nor  has  any 
new  principle  distinct  from  these  been  broached.  It  is 
not  unnatural  to  argue  that,  from  the  medieval  form 
of  organization  which  has  been  retained,  the  medieval 
doctrine  of  the  ministry  may  be  assumed.  But  this 
is  supported  neither  by  the  authoritative  formularies 
which  date  from  the  first  age  of  the  English  Refor- 
mation, nor  by  the  views  which  were  then  predominant 
among  the  reforming  theologians.  The  opportunist 
policy  of  the  State  was  not  favorable  to  doctrinaire 
consistency  in  the  application  of  any  one  theory.    The 

W  I  translate  the  above  paragraph  from  Sohm  (p.  656).  In  this  con- 
text he  cites,  among  other  references,  the  Confessio  Scotlcana  I.  Art.  18 : 
Notas  ergo  verae  ecclesiae  Dei  credimiis,  confitemur  et  profitemur,  primum 
et  ante  omnia  veram  praedicationem  verbi  Dei  —  deinde  recta  sacra- 
mentorum  Jesu  Christi  administratio  —  postremo  loco  est  disciplina 
ecclesiastica  recte  administrata,  sicut  Dei  verbum  praescribit  ad  repri- 
mendum  vitinm  et  virtutem  fovendam.  Ubicunque  praedictae  hae  notae 
videntur  et  tempore  aliquo  continuantiir  (etsi  numerus  duo  vel  tres  non 
excedat)  illic  proculdubio  esse  ecclesiam  Christi.  It  is  to  be  observed 
that  congregations,  even  if  they  are  rightly  organized,  are  not  to  be  ac- 
counted churches  until  these  notes  have  been  observed  to  "  continue  for  a 
certain  time." 


62  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

established  form  of  Churcli  government,  however,  con- 
tradicted the  Reformed  principle  of  congregational  repre- 
sentation, and  it  was  hardly  favorable  to  the  Lutheran 
principle  which  made  all  ecclesiastical  authority  de- 
pendent upon  the  ministry  of  the  word.  The  Catholic 
doctrine  of  the  ministry  has  been  strenuously  supported 
since  the  time  of  the  Stuarts,  and  it  was  probaljly  never 
so  generally  entertained  as  it  is  to-day.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  the  organization  of  the  American  Episco- 
pal Church  was  strongly  influenced  by  the  Reformed 
principle  of  representative  government ;  and  a  reor- 
ganization along  similar  lines  is  now  desired  b}^  many 
in  England,  though  the  notion  of  representative  au- 
thority is  in  fact  quite  foreign  to  primitive  as  well  as 
to  early  Catholic  institutions.  The  theories  which  liave 
already  been  briefly  described,  together  with  the  Catho- 
lic theory  which  is  to  be  traced  in  the  subsequent  chap- 
ters of  this  book,  will  enable  one  to  understand  the  point 
of  all  the  controversies  that  have  been  waged  within  the 
Anglican  Churcli  or  about  it.  To  have  no  theory  of 
Church  government  was  once  accounted  a  source  of 
weakness,  but  it  has  become  now,  in  the  present  state 
of  Protestant  Christendom,  a  signal  advantage. 

§  5,  DENOMINATIONAL  CONTROVERSY 

It  was  in  Great  Britain  that  the  Reformed  principles  J 
were   carried  to  their   extremest   conclusions ;    it  was ' 
there   that   they   provoked   the   bitterest   controversy; 
and  there  that  they  met  the  conclusive  test  which  de- 
monstrated their  practical  futility  —  the  impossibility,.; 
namely,   of  agreement  upon  any  particular  system  of  11 
government   which   could   claim   to  be   deduced  there- 
from.    The  principles  above  stated  serve  not  only  to 


§  5]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  63 

explain  the  point  of  the  Puritan  controversy,  but  al- 
most to  prognosticate  its  history.  The  history  of  this 
controversy  hardly  needs  to  be  written,  for  its  charac- 
ter is  best  understood  from  a  study  of  the  Westminsteni 
Assembl}^,  which  was  the  perfect  epitome  of  the  dis- 
senting movement  which  j)receded  it,  and  of  the  sec-' 
tarian  development  which  followed.  English  dissent 
seemed  to  represent  a  remarkable  unity  of  opinion  in 
the  contest  with  the  English  Church.  But  it  was  only 
a  concord  in  dissent  —  that  is,  in  negation  ;  and  wlien  it 
fomid  its  opportunity  for  affirmative  statement,  in  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  it  at  once  manifested  all  the 
disruptive  tendencies  which  were  inherent  in  its  princi- 
ples, and  which  have  been  exhibited  in  the  subsequent 
history  of  English  Protestantism. 

The  controversy  between  the  Lutheran  and  the  Re 
formed  Churches  was  more  or  less  academic  in  charac 
ter ;  for  after  the  first  generation  neither  organic  nor 
confessional  unity  was  thought  of,  and  there  was  the 
less  occasion  for  conflict  because  the  two  confessions 
were  professed  for  the  most  part  in  different  states. 
Very  different  was  it  in  England,  where  the  Genevan 
sympathizers  were  obliged  to  submit  to  the  discipline 
and  ritual  of  the  English  Church,  and  where  the  policy 
of  enforcing  uniformity  exceedingly  exasperated  the 
controversy.  According  to  the  Anglican  view,  uni- 
formity in  these  respects  might  the  'more  reasonably 
be  enforced  —  so  long  as  nothing  was  done  contrary  to|j 
God's  word  —  because  only  such  matters  were  involved! 
as  at  hottom  were  indifferent  to  religion.  Not  so  the 
Dissenters.  The  form  of  government  was  for  them  a  I 
question  of  conscience,  according  to  the  common  Re- 
formed view ;  and  in  the  heat  of  controversy  they  were  i 
led  to  include  rites  and  ceremonies  in  the  same  class  of  • 


11 


64  INTRODUCTIOX  [  I 

jure  divino  institutions,  —  advancing  in  tliis  beyond  the 
extremest  limit  of  Calvinistic  legalism.  They  went  so 
far  as  to  assert  the  trenchant  principle,  that  nothing  is 

\  lawful  in  the  Church  which  is  not  expressly  or  implicitly 

'  sanctioned  in  the  word  of  God. 

"■'It  is  exceedingly  necessary  to  note  the  significance 
of  this  principle,  for  it  was  at  the  bottom  of  the 
whole  controversy  of  the  Dissenters  with  the  Church  of 
England :  it  explains  the  fatal  embarrassment  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  and  accounts  for  almost 
every  sectarian  division  that  has  followed  it. 

This  principle  has  been  strangely  confused  with  the 
common  watchword  of  Protestantism  which  is  enun- 
ciated  in  Art,  vi.  of  the  English  Church,  —  "Of  the 
Sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  Salvation."  This 
article  affirms  that  "  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things 
necessary  to  salvation  :  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read 
therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required 
of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of 
the  faith  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salva- 
tion."    Whatever  be  the  position  now  of  the  Thirty 

)  Nine  Articles,  this  statement  maintains  its  importance, 

(being  substantially  a  part  of  the  king's  oath  and  of  the 

Ipriest's  vow.  As  a  mere  theoretical  proposition  this 
statement  (whether  in  the  form  in  which  it  occurs  in 
the  Articles,  or  in  the  Ordinal)  must  be  deemed  abso- 
i/lutely  worthless.  It  cannot  properly  be  regarded  as  an 
article  of  faith,  for  it  is  essentially  a  negative  proposi- 
tion. It  falls  short  of  the  measure  of  the  primitive 
faith  that  "  all  Scripture  is  God-breathed  and  profitable 
for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  discipline 
in  righteousness."  The  one  positive  statement  it  does 
^ake  —  however  true  it  may  be  —  can  be  proved  nei- 

''ther  by  the  Scriptures  themselves,  nor  by  any  abstract 


§5]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  65 

reasoning.  Even  this  statement,  however,  is  affirmed 
simply  as  a  premise  for  a  negative  conclusion.  But  in 
reality  such  criticism  is  not  to  the  point.  Properly  un- 
derstood, this  article  is  not  intended  as  an  article  of 
faith,  nor  is  it  a  theoretical  proposition  at  all :  it  is 
rather  a  practical  principle  of  ecclesiastical  administra- 
tion. Formally  the  statement  is  negative,  but  in  its 
practical  issue  the  principle  is  a  positive  one.  It  was 
one  of  the  great  positive  bulwarks  of  the  Reformation, 
and  it  remains  a  necessary  bulwark  of  liberty  so  long  " 
as  encroachment  is  to  be  feared  fronT^ie^same  quarter. 
As  an  article  of  common  consent  among  all  Protestants, 
as  a  statement,  not  of  theory  but  of  fact,  as  a  rubric 
which  prescribes  the  utmost  that  may  be  legally  exacted 
of  faith,  it  has  an  enduring  value.  It  was,  to  be  sure, 
a  rough-and-ready  way  of  deciding  the  merits  of  the 
multitudinous  traditions  that  had  overlaid  Christianity ; 
but  no  finer  test  could  be  appliftd  to  them  with  any  hope 
of  attaining  practical  accorfc^  This  test  lopped  off  at 

1  The  Roman  Church  was  already  embarrassed  by  its  own  traditions. 
It  has  since  invented  its  own  way  of  getting  rid  of  them.  Pius  IX.  is  re- 
ported to  have  said  (and  I  believe  the  statement  has  never  been  denied)  : 
La  tradition  c'est  moi!  And  an  English  Cardinal  exclaimed,  after  the 
Vatican  Council :  "  Thank  God,  we  are  now  done  with  tradition."  It  has 
never  been  the  fashion  of  the  English  Church  to  minimize  the  importance 
of  tradition,  so  far  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  genuine  writings  or  in  the 
institutions  of  the  early  Church.  The  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  refers  ex- 
pressly to  "  early  authors  "  as  well  as  to  Scripture  in  proof  of  the  antiquity 
(apostolic  character)  of  the  Catholic  ministry.  This  is  consistent  with  » 
Art.  vi.,  simply  because  the  form  of  the  ministry  is  not  made  an  article  of  \ 
faith,  —  as  it  was  according  to  both  the  Catholic  and  the  Reformed  view.  \ 
It  is  only  when  this  knot  is  definitely  cut  by  the  Protestant  principle, 
that  scrupulosity  can  yield  to  charity,  and  the  practical  affairs  of  the 
Church  "^caiTTSr^ecwwrrroairtBdr-  This  principle  is  broader  than  what 
seems  now  to  be  the  law  in  the  English  Church  (for  instance,  in  the  pro- 
hibition of  incense)  ;  and  narrower  than  the  Anglo-Catholics  would  inter- 
pret it  who  seek  to  impose  medieval  dogma  as  the  implication  of  the 
Catholic  ritual. 

6 


66 


INTRODUCTIOX 


[I 


one  stroke  the  heterogeneous  accretions  of  a  millennium 

and  a  half.     Something  of  value  may  have  shared  the 

fate   of   the   abuses.     Perhaps  —  but   about   this   men 

differ.     That  nothing  essential  was  lost  all  Protestants 

agree.     It  must  be  noted,  however,  that  this  article  did 

\  not   exclude   any   private   belief   or   practice.     Beliefs 

[  which  lacked  Scriptural  proof  might  be  entertained,  but 

^hey  might  not  be  exacted.     Ceremonies  and  forms  of 

government  were  retained  without  any  attempt  to  jus- 

jtify  them  on  Scriptural  grounds.     But  all  scruple  about 

such  things  was  removed  when  it  was  understood  that 

they  were  not  to  be  regarded  as  necessary  to  salvation 

nor  as  matters  of  faith. 

»      Men  talk  vaguely  of  "  the  Reformation  settlement "  — 
i  there  is  no  other  settlement  than  this,  nor  ever  was.     It 
[did  not  settle  everything,  by  any  means,  though  it  set- 
tled much.     It  allowed   of  one  excess  which  was  its 
grave  defect,  and  it  is  by  the  remedy  of  this  that  our 
modern  time  is  likely  to  attain  a  more  complete  set- 
tlement.    The  Protestant  principle  should  now  read : 
Whatsoever  is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  whether  in  the 
Scriptures  or  out  of  them,  is  not  to  be  required  of  anv 
man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  faithv^ 
The  proposition  maintained  by  the  Dissenters  was  not 


2  Cf.  pp.  150  sq.  §  10,  n.  E.  This  is  certainly  tlie  notion  which  is 
becoming  dominant  in  our  time,  —  notably  among  Congregationalists 
and  Anglicans.  At  the  same  time  the  example  quoted  above  in  §  4, 
note  16,  shows  the  persistence  of  the  contrary  principle,  which  the  early 
Dissenters  were  at  least  inclined  to  act  upon,  namely,  that  everything  that 
may  be  proved  by  Scripture  is  to  be  required  of  men,  that  it  should  be 
believed  as  an  article  of  the  faith,  —  with  the  restriction  that  no  man  be 
permitted  to  believe  whatsoever  may  not  be  proved  thereby.  Protestantism 
is  not  a,fait?i,  but  it  is  an  important  principle  conditioning  belief.  The 
Protestant  principle,  rightly  understood,  is  a  condition  of  peace  and 
iinity :  the  Reformed  principle,  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  been  com- 
monly urged,  is  necessarily  a  cause  of  scruple  and  division. 


§  5]  DENOMIXATIONAL  CONTROVERSY  67 

a  mere  amplification  of  the  common  Protestant  state- 
ment, nor  was  it  merely  a  more  stringent  application  of 
it:   it  was,  so  far  as  it  covered  the  same  gromid,  its 
express  logical  contrary ;  and  in   so  far  as  it  extended 
the  operation  of  this  principle  from  what  is  to  be  he- 
lieved  to  what  is  to  be  done,  it  transformed  a  guarantee 
of  freedom  into  a  bond  of  scruple.    Protestants  main- 1 , 
tained,  that  nothing  but  this   (namely,  what  is  to  be  / 
proved  from  Scripture)  may  be  exacted  as  an  article  of  Ij 
faith  :    the  Dissenters  asserted   that   nothing  but   this 
may  be  jjennitted  in  the  Church  —  either  to  be  believed 
or  to  be  done.^     The  Dissenters  had  supreme  confidence 

3  If  any  one  doubt  that  the  trenchant  principle  enunciated  in  the  text 
was  actually  asserted  by  the  early  English  Puritans  and  commonly  enter- 
tained by  them,  it  will  be  easy  to  verify  my  statement  by  referring  to 
Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  the  Second  Book  of  which  was  written 
expressly  to  combat  this  principle,  while  the  Third  Book  deals  with 
particular  applications  of  it.  A  fair  notion  of  the  position  of  the 
Dissenters  may  be  got  from  Hooker's  quotations  from  Cartwright.  But 
it  is  certainly  unfortunate  that  the  original  works  of  that  author  —  as 
well  as  those  of  other  Puritan  authors  of  his  time  —  are  inaccessible 
to  most  readers,  there  being  but  few  copies  of  them  in  America.  I 
fancy  that  there  ai"e  many  thousand  copies  of  Hooker's  work  in  America 
to  one  of  Cartwright's.  It  is  a  striking  turn  of  fortune  which  has  made 
Richard  Hooker  famous  in  the  land  of  the  Puritans  while  Thomas  Cart- 
wright  is  forgotten  !  Cartwright  hardly  deserves  the  oblivion  into  which 
he  has  fallen.  He  has  jixstly  been  called  "  the  father  of  English  Pres- 
byterians " —  and  we  may  add,  of  English  Puritans,  for  in  his  time 
these  two  parties  were  not  distinguished.  He  was  a  controversial  writer 
of  rare  talent  and  training,  and  in  addition  to  that,  he  possessed  pro- 
found learning  in  both  Biblical  and  patristic  sources.  His  writings  may 
with  the  more  confidence  be  accepted  as  representative,  because  he  took 
no  part  with  the  extremists  of  his  faction.  .  .  .  Those  who  have  oppor- 
tunity to  consult  Cartwright's  woi'ks  will  find  that  the  statement  made 
above  in  the  text  does  not  express  the  full  rigor  of  the  Puritan  principle. 
(The  Second  Reply  is  printed  seriatim  with  Whitgift's  Answer  in  the 
edition  of  the  Parker  Society.)  See  especially  pp.  20-35,  58-60,  of  the 
First  Reply — 'the  full  title  of  the  work  is  A  Replie  to  an  Ansivere  made  to 
M.  Doctor  Whiteyifte  Against  the  Admonition  to  the  Parliament  by  T.  C. 
1573.  In  Hooker's  work  it  is  cited  as  "C.  T.  1.  1."  The  books  which 
Hooker  cites  respectively  as  1.  ii.  and  1.  iii.  are  :   The  Second  Replie  of 


«8  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

in  the  sufficiency  of  Scripture  as  a  law-book  for  govern- 
ment and  worship ;  and  they  never  wavered  in  this 
behef  until,  in  the  Westminster  Assembly,  they  had 
an  opportunity  of  putting  it  to  a  practical  test  in  the 
elaboration  of  a  concrete  system  of  worship  and  disci- 
pline. This  principle  was  of  a  piece  with  the  legalism 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent,  but  only 
the  asperity  of  the  English  controversy  could  have 
brought  it  to  so  extreme  an  expression  and  so  rigid 
an  application. 

The  difference  between  the  Dissenters  and  the  Church 
was  a  radical  one,  and  the  issue  was  all  the  more  sharply 
defined  because  both  parties  were  at  one  in  their  theol- 
ogy. The  English  Church  in  Elizabeth's  time  was  so 
thoroughly  Calvinistic  that  a  preacher  was  likely  to 
incur  popular  odium  (as  in  the  well-known  case  of 
Hooker),  if  he  sought  to  modify  the  severity  of  this 
doctrine.  The  sequel  proved,  too,  that  the  two  parties 
|Were  not  really  at  odds  about  the  policy  (or  principle)  of 
enforcing  uniformity ;  but  only  about  the  character  of 
the  government  and  ritual  that  ought  to  be  imposed. 

The  principle  maintained  by  the  early  Dissenters  was 
admirably  suited  to  their  immediate  purpose,  it  was  an 
excellent  weapon  of  offensive  criticism ;  but  when  their 
own  opportunity  of  construction  came,  the  sword  which 
they  had  wielded  with  so  much  success  turned  against 
themselves,  and  it  had  too  long  been  their  chief  weapon 
to  be  then  lightly  discarded. 

The  controversy  of  the  Nonconformists  before  the 
Westminster   Assembly,    like  that   of  their   successors 

Thomas  Cartwright :  agaynst  Maister  Doctor  Witgiftes  second  Answer.  1675. 
find  The  rest  of  the  second  replie  of  Thomas  Cnrtvurihgt :  agaynst  Master 
Doctor  Vuhitgifts  second  ansver,  &c.     (Amsterdam)  1577. 


§  5]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  69 

after  it,  appears  to  have  turned  more  upon  questions  of 
ritual  than  of  government.  But  this  appearance  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  ritual  of  the  English  Church  was  a 
field  which  presented  more  numerous  individual  points 
of  attack  — for  a  policy  of  pin-pricks,  as  we  should  say 
nowadays. 

That  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  the  most  ad- 
mirable liturgy  ever  in  use,  is  not  to  say  that  it  had 
no  faults.  The  criticism  of  the  Dissenters  has  been  in 
part  justified  by  the  revisions  which  the  book  has  under- 
gone. In  regard  to  the  American  revisions  particularly, " 
it  is  interesting  to  remark  how  many  of  the  old  com- 
plaints have  been  met,  either  by  express  alterations  or 
by  permissive  rubrics.  But  it  is  no  less  interesting  to 
note  how  few  are  found  who  care  to  take  advantage  of 
the  permission,  —  for  instance,  to  omit  the  sign  of  the 
cross  in  baptism,  or  the  Gloria  Patri  after  each  Psalm. 
It  is  evident  that  the  point  of  the  offence  was  removed 
with  the  compulsion.  Most  of  the  complaints  on  the 
score  of  ritual  were,  however,  so  trivial  or  so  perverse 
that  the  modern  Presbyterian  can  regard  them  with  as 
little  sympathy  as  does  the  modern  Anglican. 

In  reality,  the  fundamental  dispute  was  on  thg  gneg- 
tion  of  government :  this  is  the  subject  upon  which  { 
almost  tTie  whole  battle  in  the  Westmiiister^A^afiiiably 
was  fought,  and  upon  this  question  the  hopes  of  the 
Assembly  for  a  settlement  of  English  Christianity  were 
wrecke(0   It  is  impossible  to  ignore  the  political  ele- 

*  The  doctrinal  statement  —  that  is,  the  Confession  and  the  cate- 
chisms —  was  the  only  enduring  work  of  the  Assembly,  and  that  was 
hardly  more  than  a  by-product,  being  prepared  mostly  in  committee 
during  intervals  of  the  discussion  on  government,  and  occupying  only 
a  few  months  out  of  the  five  years  during  which  the  Assembly  sat.  The 
Confession  was  the  more  rapidly  completed  because  of  the  work  of 
revising  the  Thirty  Nine  Articles  which  had  occupied  the  first  seventy- 
five  sessions  —  one  of  the  most  futile  works  of  the  Assembly,  which  was 


70  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

ments  which  contributed  to  embarrass  the  work  of  the 
Assembly  and  finally  to  defeat   its   aim.     During  the 

interrupted  by  Parliament  before  its  completion.  Ussher's  Irish  Articles 
of  1615  had  been  largely  used  in  this  first  work,  and  they  constituted  also 
the  most  important  source  of  the  Confession.  Even  the  Confession, 
however,  has  had  no  great  significance  for  England,  for  which  it  was 
prepared;  but  only  for  Scotland  and  America.  The  Directory  of  Wor- 
ship, prepared  in  as  short  a  time,  has  indeed  had  an  influence,  but  of  a 
negative  sort.  It  succeeded  in  abolishing  the  liturgies  that  had  hitherto 
been  in  use  in  the  Presbyterian  Churches,  but  it  never  won  general 
observance  for  itself,  and  was  soon  utterly  neglected.  In  drawing  up 
a  mere  directory,  including  no  formal  prayers,  the  Assembly  was  not 
moved  by  a  theoretical  objection  to  prescribed  forms  of  worship,  which 
all  of  the  Reformed  Churches  used,  but  by  the  desire  to  effect  uniformity, 
—  it  being  recognized  that  the  English  would  not  accept  the  Scottish 
book  already  in  use,  nor  the  Scots  discard  their  book  in  favor  of  an 
English  one.  The  Independents  immediately  objected  to  the  Directory 
that  it  had  more  rubrics  than  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  It  was 
indeed  the  first  instance  of  a  manual  of  worship  that  contained  nothing 
but  rubrics.  Before  reaching  this  point  in  their  labors  the  Assembly  had 
abandoned  the  notion  of  justifying  all  the  details  of  worship  by  the 
express  sanction  of  Scripture :  they  claimed  for  their  Directory  only  that 
it  was  a  convenient  form  of  worship,  agreeable  to  Scriptural  principles, 
and  in  harmony  with  the  use  of  the  Reformed  Churches.  The  Assembly 
did  a  grave  though  unintended  damage  in  abolishing  the  old  formulas 
of  worship  without  succeeding  in  establishing  the  Directory  in  their 
place.  The  Scottish  Church  is  only  now  beginning  to  restore  its  old 
book  of  worship  (in  an  enriched  form),  and  the  majority  of  Protestant 
Churches  in  America  still  suffer  the  impoverishment.  By  far  the  gi-eater 
part  of  the  1163  sessions  of  the  Assembly,  extending  over  nearly  five 
years,  was  occupied  with  questions  of  government.  The  futility  of  it  all 
may  be  measured  by  the  fact  that  although  all  the  formulas  adopted  by 
the  Assembly  were  strictly  Presbyterian,  Independency  has  been  from 
that  time  forth  the  prevailing  type  of  Nonconformity  in  England.  That 
the  Assembly  provided  the  Scottish  Kirk  with  the  so-called  Form  of  Church 
Government  which  it  still  retains  along  with  the  Confession,  is  a  matter 
of  no  substantial  consequence;  for  this  is  merely  a  formula;  whereas 
the  form  itself,  the  actual  system  of  government,  had  already  been  for 
a  long  time  established  ;  and  the  Presbyterianism  of  America  is  derived 
from  the  Kirk,  not  from  the  Assembly.  What  the  Scots  caU  The  Form 
of  Church  Government  was  called  by  the  Assembly  Propositions  concern- 
ing Church  Government  and  Ordination  of  Ministers.  This  was  their  first 
work  on  the  subject  of  government,  and  it  is  consistently  wrought  out 
upon  the  principle  oijtts  divinum.  It  occupied  them  from  Oct.  12,  1643, 
to  Nov.  8,  1644.     This  was  the  most  interesting  period  of  the  Assembly. 


§5]  DENOMINATIONAL  CONTROVERSY  71 

first  years  of  its  session  the  Long  Parliament  depended 
upon  the  Scottish  armies  for  maintaining  itself  against 
the  King;  and  the  Assembly  was  consequently  sub- 
jected to  the  dictation  of  a  handful  of  Scottish  commis- 
sioners, who  succeeded  for  the  time  in  holding  it  strictly 
to  the  lines  of  Presbyterian  polity,  but  fomented  thereby 
a  party  spirit  which  made  subsequent  concord  impos- 
sible. The  Assembly  faced  the  alternative  of  deciding 
all  questions  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  the 
Scottish  Kirk,  or  of  seeing  the  King  restored  to  power 
and  themselves  dispersed,  —  if  they  did  not  suffer  also 
the  penalty  of  praemunire,  which  they  had  incurred  by 

But  it  was  at  once  evident  that  the  majority  of  the  Parliament,  though 
they  were  ready  to  substitute  a  Presbyterian  form  of  government  for  the 
Episcopal  in  the  National  Church,  were  by  no  means  disposed  to  admit 
the  jure  divino  claims  which  were  made  for  it  in  the  Propositions.  The 
Assembly  was  therefore  obliged  to  spend  the  rest  of  the  year  1644  and 
the  early  part  of  1645  in  the  preparation  of  a  Directory  for  Church 
Government,  which  contained  the  same  system,  but  shorn  of  its  divine 
sanctions.  Soon  after  this  they  became  involved  in  the  debates  about 
the  autonomy  of  the  Church  —  that  is,  its  relation  to  the  civil  magistrate 
—  which  brought  them  into  irreconcilable  conflict  with  the  Parliament. 
The  last  act  of  this  notable  assembly  was  ignominious :  it  gradually 
melted  away  in  the  pitiful  attempt  to  answer  the  nine  Queries  on  the  jus 
divinum  of  Church  Government  with  which  the  Parliament  had  artfully 
posed  them.  From  first  to  last  this  was  the  crux  that  baffled  all  their 
endeavors.  It  is  interesting  to  note  how  small  were  the  powers  granted 
to  the  Assembly  by  the  ordinance  of  Parliament  which  convened  it. 
They  were  "  to  consult  and  advise  of  such  matters  and  things,  touching 
the  premises,  as  shall  he  proposed  unto  them  by  both  or  either  of  the  Houses 
of  Parliament,  and  to  give  their  advice  and  counsel  therein."  And  it 
is  finally  expressly  provided  that  they  shall  not  "  assume  to  exercise  any 
jurisdiction,  power,  or  authority  ecclesiastical  whatsoever."  There  is  a 
short  history  of  the  Assembly  by  Mitchell:  The  Westminster  Assembly, 
its  History  and  Standards,  1884.  But  no  history  gives  so  vivid  an  idea 
of  the  character  and  spirit  of  the  Assembly  as  one  may  get  by  following 
the  debates  of  a  single  session  as  they  are  described  in  Lightfoot's 
Journal  {Works,  ed.  1875,  vol.  XIII.)  or  in  the  Letters  and  Journals  of 
Baillie,  one  of  the  Scottish  commissioners.  Both  of  these  make  lively 
reading.  Much  dryer  are  The  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  (edited  by  Mitchell 
and  others)  and  Gillespie's  Notes. 


72  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

assembling  contrary  to  the  King's  command.  With 
the  defeat  of  the  parliamentary  armies  in  the  West, 
the  English  found  themselves  obliged  to  subscribe  to  the 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  which,  as  the  Scots  un- 
derstood it,  bound  the  nation  to  abolish  prelacy  and 
establish  the  Presbyterian  system.  The  English  inter- 
pretation of  the  Covenant  was  by  no  means  free  from 
duplicity.  The  subsequent  triumph  of  Cromwell  and 
the  Independents  relieved  them  from  the  Scots,  but  it 
set  the  Presbyterian  majority  of  the  Assembly  in  hope- 
less opposition  to  the  government. 

"For  all  this  it  is  by  no  means  unreasonable  to  believe 
[that  the  Assembly  might  have  exercised  a  far-reaching 
j  and  permanent  influence  upon  the  National  Church,  and 
perhaps  upon  the  political  history  of  England,  if  it  had 
j  not  clung  so  tenaciously  to  the  tenet  of  the  jus  divinwn 
'  of  Church  government.    The  principle  that  no  feature  of 
government  might  be  adopted  without  the  express  war- 
[/*  rant  of  Scripture,  was  never  able  to  pass  the  muster  of 
a  formal  vote  in  the  Assembly,  but  it  nevertheless  was 
the  assumption  that  underlay  all  the  debates. 
f     The  Assembly  itself  was  chiefly  responsible  for  the 
I  irreconcilable   hostility  which  was  developed   between 
'  Presbyterians  and  Independents.     The  divines  met  un- 
der  favorable   auspices.     The   formal   power  accorded 
them  by  Parliament  was  small,  but  the  moral  authority 
of  the  body  was  great.     The  few  loyal  Churchmen  who 
were  members  of   the  Assembly  voluntarily  absented 
themselves  from  its  sessions,  and  the  remainder  repre- 
sented a  substantial  unanimity  of  opinion  upon  many  of 
the  practical  reforms  which  they  desired  to  effect  in 
the  National  Church.     It  seems  likely  that  they  might 
have  abolished  Episcopacy  and  even  established  a  sys- 
tem which  was  virtually  Presbyterian,  if  they  had  been 


§5]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  73 

content  to  justify  its  details  upon  grounds  of  practical 
expediency,  instead  of  making  each  of  them  a  point 
of  conscience  by  the  claim  of  divine  right.^ 

But  how  bold  a  work  it  was  the  Assembly  actually 
undertook  to  do,  and  how  certain  it  was  of  failure ! 
With  their  little  gilt-edged  English  Bibles  in  their  hands 
—  about  which  Selden  taunted  them  —  they  proposed 
to  themselves  nothing  less  than  to  establish  a  new  and 
complete  system  of  Church  government  upon  the  ijms- 
sima  verba  of  Scripture.  Fancy  an  assembly  of  scholars 
got  together  to-day  for  such  a  purpose !     What  they 

*  Baillie  says  (Letters  and  Journals,  vol.  II.  p.  Ill)  :  "  All  of  them  were 
ever  willing  to  admit  elders  in  a  prudential  way  ( i.  e.  as  an  expedient  of 
human  arrangement),  but  this  to  us  seemed  most  dangerous  and  unhappy, 
and  therefore  was  peremptorily  rejected.  We  trust  to  carry  at  last,  with 
the  contentment  of  sundry  once  opposite,  and  the  silence  of  all,  their 
divine  and  Scrijitural  institution."  "This,"  he  adds,  "  is  a  point  of  high 
consequence,  and  on  no  other  do  we  expect  so  great  difficulty  except 
alone  on  Independency,  wherewith  we  purpose  not  to  meddle  in  haste  till 
it  please  God  to  advance  our  army,  tohich  we  expect  will  much  assist  our 
arguments.^'  When  it  proved  to  be  God's  pleasure  to  advance  Cromwell's 
army  rather  than  the  Scots,  the  astute  Baillie  absented  himself  from  the 
theoretical  discussions  of  the  Assembly  to  intrigue  against  the  Parliament 
in  London,  and  he  was  much  disgusted  when  his  schemes  "  played  nipshot," 
as  he  put  it.  It  was  especially  the  intrigues  of  the  Scottish  Commissioners 
that  roused  Milton's  indignation,  as  expressed  in  his  well  known  poem  : 

Because  you  have  thrown  off  your  prelate  lord, 

And  with  stiff  vows  renounced  his  liturgy, 

To  seize  the  widowed  whore  Plurality 

From  them  whose  sin  ye  envied,  not  abhorred, 
Dare  ye  for  this  adjure  the  civil  sword 

To  force  our  consciences  that  Christ  set  free, 

And  ride  us  with  a  classic  hierarchy 

Taught  ye  by  mere  A.  S.  and  Rotherford  1 
By  shallow  Edwards  and  Scotch  what  d'ye  call : 

But  we  do  hope  to  find  out  all  your  tricks, 

Your  plots  and  packings  worse  than  those  of  Trent, 
That  so  the  Parliament 
May,  with  their  wliolesome  and  preventive  shears. 
Clip  your  phylacteries,  though  balk  your  ears, 
And  succour  our  just  fears. 
When  they  shall  read  this  clearly  in  your  charge. 
New  Presbyter  is  but  Old  Priest  writ  large. 


74  INTRODUCTION  [I 

actually  did,  however,  was  merely  to  provide  Scriptural 
proof-texts  for  the  Presbyterian  system  which  was  al- 
ready established  in  Scotland.  But  if  conscientiously 
done,  even  this  was  a  mighty  task. 

It  was  necessary,  as  they  conceived,  to  prove  in  the 
first  place  that  all  the  offices  of  the  Church  inhered 
in  Christ  —  for  otherwise  he  could  not  have  imparted 
them!  Next,  all  the  officers  of  the  primitive  Church 
had  to  be  enumerated,  and  those  which  were  extraordi- 
nary distinguished  from  those  which  were  ordinary  and 
permanent.  One  can  fancy  how  difficult  it  was  to 
adduce  the  Scriptural  proof  of  this  distinction.  For 
instance,  no  one  doubted  that  the  office  of  deacon  was 
meant  to  be  permanent.  But  how  to  prove  it?  The 
deacon's  function  was  to  administer  the  charity  of 
the  congregation.  It  was  long  time  debated  whether 
the  permanency  of  this  office  was  not  proved  by  the 
assertion  of  1  Cor.  13  :  8  that  "  Charity  never  faileth." 
But  not  being  able  to  agree  upon  that,  they  had  to 
be  satisfied  with  two  proof-texts  which  did  not  prove 
it  — 1  Tim.  3  :  8-15  and  Acts  6  : 1-4. 

It  further  had  to  be  proved  what  powers  and  functions 
belonged  to  each  office.  Here,  too,  they  were  obliged 
to  content  themselves  with  poor  proofs  or  none  at  all. 
Their  embarrassments  never  brought  them  to  the  point 
of  repudiating  their  principle,  but  it  is  amusing  to  see 
how  they  slipped  over  their  difficulties.  For  instance, 
when  it  had  been  decided  that  the  pastoral  office  was 
permanent,  it  remained  to  prove  among  other  things 
that  the  administration  of  the  Holy  Communion  be- 
longed to  the  pastor  alone.  About  the  proposition 
itself  all  were  agreed  —  but  where  was  the  Scriptural 
proof?  At  this  juncture  "Old  Mr.  Wilkinson,  senior" 
—  the  double  qualification  suggests  a  picture  of  queru- 


§5]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  75 

lous  age  —  "  did  very  roundly  answer,  that  he  did  never 
hear  from  the  learned  such  a  question,  as,  whether  the 
pastor  hath  to  do  more  in  the  sacrament  than  others. 
And  the  rest  of  the  Assembly  cried  the  thing  down 
exceedingly  as  not  worthy  to  be  answered;  and  so 
was  the  proposition  ordered."  ^ 

The  divines  of  the  Assembly  were  as  sincere  a  body  of 
men  as  ever  met  in  a  religious  council.  Even  the  charac- 
teristic incidents  above  quoted  prove  a  certain  sturdy 
sincerity  of  principle,  —  though,  to  be  sure,  it  was  sin- 
cerity in  the  maintenance  of  prejudice  and  in  defence 
of  the  2Jartie  2)rise.  They  felt,  particularly  in  the  earlier 
period,  a  sense  of  immense  responsibility :  they  con- 
ceived that  they  were  settling  the  order  of  the  English 
Church  for  all  time  to  come.  This  feeling  was  some- 
times very  naively  expressed.  No  text  was  debated  at 
greater  length  and  with  more  heat  than  1  Tim.  5:17, 
adduced  in  proof  of  the  proposition  that  the  ruling 
elder  is  a  presbyter.  The  text  was  finally  rejected 
—  much  to  the  disgust  of  the  Scots.  In  the  course 
of  this  important  debate  a  number  of  the  divines  im- 
plored the  Assembly  to  proceed  carefully,  urging  that 
any  "accommodation"  upon  this  point  would  be  "a 
political  act,  fit  for  Parliament,  not  for  us ;  and  that  it 
will  leave  all  posterity  hi  the  dark.""  ^ 

^  Lightfoot's  Journal,  p.  44. 

'  Lightfoot's  Journal,  p.  76.  Having  discarded  the  classical  proof- 
text  for  the  ruling  elder,  the  Assembly  rested  their  proof  of  the  office 
chiefly  upon  the  fact  that  "  there  were  in  the  Jewish  church  elders  of  the 
people  that  were  joined  with  the  priests  and  Levites  in  the  government 
of  the  church,"  2  Chron.  19  :  8-10  being  brought  to  prove  it.  They  were 
also  disposed  to  attribute  great  weight  to  the  mention  of  seniores  in  the 
Christian  writings  of  the  third  century.  The  Assembly  found  itself 
obliged  to  leave  all  posterity  in  the  dark  in  regard  to  the  offices  of  doctor 
and  pastor  —  namely,  whether  they  were  essentially  distinct,  or  might 
properly  be  combined  in  one  person.  About  this  dispute  Mitchell  says 
(pp.   cit.  pp.  184  sq.)  :  "  The  Independents  contended  not  only  that  the 


76  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

There  was  probably  never  a  religious  assembly  which 
exercised  such  perfect  freedom  of  debate,  particularly 
upon  the  questions  at  issue  between  Presbyterians  and 
Independents.  The  proof-texts  advanced  by  the  Presby- 
terian majority  were  as  ruthlessly  sifted  by  the  Independ- 
ents as  ever  they  could  have  been  by  the  Prelatists; 
and  what  was  finally  carried  by  a  party  vote  issued  from 
the  debate  shorn  of  all  moral  authority.  This  severe 
test  was  virtually  the  end  of  jure  divmo  Presbyterian- 
ism.  The  Independents  from  this  time  forward  adopted 
a  much  more  liberal  attitude,  and  even  among  Presbyte- 
rians the  theory  has  since  slowly  fallen  into  decay. 

After  the  debates  on  the  ruling  elder  (which  are  the 
most  interesting  reading  of  all)  came  debates  on  the 
subject  of  Presbyteries.  This  critical  question  was 
forced  upon  the  Assembly  at  an  earlier  stage  than  they 
were  willing  to  consider  it  (see  above,  note  5),  by  a 
practical  emergency  which  the  Parliament  ordered  them 
to  meet  at  once.  There  was  an  urgent  necessity  of 
ordaining  new  ministers  to  fill  the  places  vacated  by 
loyal  Churchmen,  and  so  to  keep  the  people  in  patience 
with  the  Parliament.  The  Assembly,  however,  was 
totally  unable  to  agree  as  to  whether  ordination  be- 
longed jure  divmo  to  the  particular  congregation  or  to 
the  classical  presbytery,  and  they  were  hardly  to  be 
brought  to  even  a  temporary  and  practical  accommoda- 
tion. It  was  suggested  that  until  they  could  come  to 
agreement  upon  this   principle   the  bishops  might  be 

offices  were  distinct,  but  also  that  every  congregation,  as  far  as  possible, 
should  have  its  doctor  as  well  as  its  pastor.  The  Scots  rather  inclined  to 
distinguish  the  offices,  but  to  hold,  with  their  own  second  book  of  disci- 
pline, that  the  chief  use  of  the  doctor  was  in  universities  and  schools. 
But  the  English  divines,  who  were  many  of  them  reluctantly  giving  up 
bishops  because  they  had  no  proper  divine  institution  to  urge  for  them, 
were  altogether  averse  to  recognizing  any  divine  institution  of  the  doctor 
as  essentially  a  distinct  office  bearer  from  the  pastor." 


§  5]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  77 

allowed  to  ordain,  but  they  could  not  agree  that  episcopal 
ordination  was  valid.  These  were  the  longest  and  most 
arid  debates  of  the  Assembly.  At  this  time  the  weight 
of  aro;ument  as  well  as  of  arms  was  on  the  side  of  the 
Independents,  —  for  it  is  as  plain  as  day  that  there  are 
no  proofs  in  the  New  Testament  for  general  Presbyteries 
(ruling  over  several  congregations),  for  synods,  or  for 
general  assemblies.  The  breach  between  Presbyterians 
and  Independents  here  proved  irreconcilable.  But  the 
Presbyterians  still  had  a  majority  in  the  Assembly,  and 
they  persisted  in  decreeing  their  jure  divino  Presbyteries 
—  only  to  have  them  nullified  by  Parliament.^ 

The  preceding  note  gives  a  hint  of  the  opposition 
which  might  be  expected  from  Parliament  when  it 
came  to  the  question  of  ecclesiastical  autonomy.  The 
Parliament  had  good  reason  to  fear  that  popular  synods 
and  assemblies  of  the  Presbyterian  sort  might  be  less 
readily  subjected  to  state  control  than  were  the  bishops. 
The  Scottish  Kirk  was  a  dread  example !     They  had 

8  Mitchell  (^Westminster  Ass.  p.  165)  gives  an  account  of  one  of  the 
climaxes  of  this  debate,  quoting  from  Baillie's  Letters  and  Journals,  vol.  ii. 
p.  145 :  "  On  the  20th  of  Februaiy,  1644,  there  being  very  fair  appear- 
ances of  agreement  in  the  matters  disputed  between  the  two  parties,  after 
long  and  keen  debates,  Mr.  Nye  [the  leading  Puritan  debater]  interfered 
to  'spoil  all  their  play,'  and  offered  to  prove  their  favorite  church 
government  '  inconsistent  with  a  civil  state; '  and  again  on  the  following 
day  when  '  seeing  the  Assembly  full  of  the  prime  nobles  and  chief  mem- 
bers of  both  Houses,  he  did  fall  on  that  argument  again  and  offered  to 
demonstrate  that  their  way  of  drawing  a  whole  kingdom  under  one 
national  Assembly  was  formidable,  yea,  thrice  over  pernicious  to  civil 
states  and  kingdoms. '  It  is  hardly  to  be  wondered  that  he  should  have 
been  cried  down  and  voted  to  have  spoken  against  the  order,  or  that  the 
perfervidum  ingenium  Scotorum  should  have  been  roused,  and  even  the 
calm  and  judicious  Henderson  should  for  the  moment  have  so  far  given 
way  to  his  exasperation  as  to  compare  him  with  Sanballat,  Tobias,  and 
Symmachus,  who  sought  to  stir  up  their  heathen  rulers  against  the  Jews, 
or  to  the  Pagan  wi'iters  who  stirred  up  the  Roman  Emperors  against  the 
Christians." 


78  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

also  good  reason  to  be  diffident  about  intrusting  the 
uncontrolled  power  of  excommunication  to  a  national 
church  which  was  founded  upon  Puritan  principles. 
But  upon  this  point  the  Presbyterians  could  not  yield, 
and  though  this  was  the  most  melancholy  period  of  the 
Assembly,  and  outwardly  the  most  ignominious,  one 
cannot  but  admire  the  resolution  with  which  they  stuck 
to  their  colors,  even  when  they  saw  that  the  end  must 
be  the  frustration  of  all  their  hopes. 

Erastianism   was    predominant    in    the    Parliament, 
and  it  was  also  strongly  represented  in  the  Assembly. 
It  was  essentially  a  Reformed  principle,  and  it  was  no 
mere  accident  that  it  took  its  name  from  a  member  of 
the  Reformed  Church  at  Heidelberg,  —  though  it  was 
answered  by  Beza  as  the  representative  of  the  traditions 
of  Geneva.     Erastus'  position  was  only  possible  on  the 
basis  of  Zwingli's  and  Calvin's  theory,  which  contrasted 
the  functions  of  teaching  and  discipline ;  and  on  this 
basis  it  was  logically  legitimate.     He  only  asserted  the 
common  Reformed  principle  in   maintaining   that   the 
pastoral    office   is   merely   persuasive,    that  the   pastor 
may  set  forth  the  conditions  of  worthily  partaking  the 
sacrament,  and  may  even  warn  the  unworthy,  though 
he  can  exclude  no  one.     This  power  —  the  whole  power 
of   discipline  —  the   Reformed    theory    allotted   to    lay 
representatives  of  the  people,  the   ruling  elders.     But 
why,  said  Erastus,  is  it  not  more  convenient  and  more 
in  harmony  with  the   Old    Testament   to  account   the 
ordinary  popular  re2)resentatives,  the   civil  magistrates 
of  the  Christian  state,  the  proper  organs  of  this  func- 
tion?    Why  not?^ 

^  To  explain  the  uncompromising  stand  which  the  English  Presby- 
terians took  upon  this  point  it  needs  to  be  noted  that  the  Scots  had  drifted 
away  from  the  common  Reformed  position  and  were  inclined  to  attribute 


§  5]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  79 

The  protracted  negotiations  on  the  subject  of  au- 
tonomy were  suspended  for  a  long  season  by  a  set  of 
"Queries"  —  most  ingeniously  calculated  to  annoy — - 
which  the  Parliament  proposed  to  the  Assembly.  I 
quote  these  questions  in  full  because  they  touch  so 
acutely  the  weak  spot  in  the  Assembly,  namely,  the 
Dissenters'  maintenance  of  the  divine  right  of  Presby- 
terian government  in  all  its  details. 

"  Whereas  it  is  resolved  by  the  House  of  Commons,  that  all 
persons  guilty  of  notorious  and  scandalous  offences  shall  be 
suspended  from  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper:  The 
House  of  Commons  desires  to  be  satisfied  by  the  Assembly 
of   Divines   in   these    Questions    following : 

"  I.  Whether  the  Parochial  and  Congregational  Elderships 
appointed  by  the  Ordinance  of  Parliament,  or  any  other  Congre- 
gational or  Presbyterial  Elderships,  are  Jure  divino  and  of 
the  will  and  appointment  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  whether  any 
particular  church-government  be  jure  divino  ;  and  what  that 
government  is  ? 

"  11.  Whether  all  the  members  of  the  said  Elderships,  as  mem- 
bers thereof,  or  which  of  them,  are  jure  divino  and  by  the  will 
and  appointment  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 

"  III.  Whether  the  superior  Assemblies  or  Elderships,  viz.  the 
Classical,  Provincial,  and  National,  whether  all  or  any  of  them 
are  jure  divino  and  by  the  will  and  appointment  of  Jesus 
Christ  ? 

"  IV.  Whether  appeals  from  Congregational  Elderships  to 
the  Classical,  Provincial,  and  National  Assemblies,  or  to  any 
of  them,  and  to  which  of  them,  are  jure  divino  and  by  the  will 
and  appointment  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  are  their  powers  upon 

to  the  pastoral  office  a  definite  power  of  government  —  though  only  as  it 
was  associated  with  the  eldership.  Hence  it  is,  too,  that  the  Assembly 
did  not  require  aplurality  of  elders  in  a  congregation.  One  was  sufficient, 
if  he  give  his  whole  time  to  the  work ;  and  in  that  case  it  is  assumed  that  he 
shall  receive  a  pecuniary  support.  The  Scots  were  not  quite  clear  whether 
the  elder  was  a  laymau  or  not.  Surely  the  difference  is  an  unsubstan- 
tial one ! 


80  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

such  appeals  jure  divino  and  by  the  will  and  appointment  of 
Jesus  Christ  ? 

"  V.  Whether  Oecumenical  Assemblies  are  jure  divino  ;  and 
whether  there  be  appeals  from  any  of  the  former  Assemblies  to 
the  said  Oecumenical  jure  divino  and  by  the  will  and  appoint- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ  ? 

"  VI.  Whether  by  the  Word  of  God  the  power  of  judging 
and  declaring  what  are  such  notorious  and  scandalous  offences 
for  which  persons  guilty  thereof  are  to  be  kept  from  the  sac- 
rament of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  of  conventing  before  them, 
trying,  and  actually  suspending  from  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  such  offenders  accordingly,  is  either  in  the 
Congregational  Eldership  or  presbytery,  or  in  any  other  Elder- 
ship, Congi-egation,  or  Persons ;  and  whether  such  powers  are 
in  them  only,  or  in  any  of  them,  and  in  which  of  them,  jiLve  divino 
and  by  the  will  and  appointment  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 

"VIL  Whether  there  be  any  certain  and  particular  rules 
expressed  in  the  Word  of  God  to  direct  the  Elderships  or 
Presbyteries,  Congregations  or  Persons,  or  any  of  them,  in  the 
exercise  and  execution  of  the  powers  aforesaid ;  and  what 
are   these   rules  ? 

"  VIII.  Is  there  anything  contained  in  the  Word  of  God, 
that  the  supreme  Magistracy  in  a  Christian  State  may  not 
judge  what  are  the  aforesaid  notorious  and  scandalous  offences, 
and  the  manner  of  suspension  for  the  same :  and  in  what 
particulars  concerning  the  premises  is  the  said  supreme 
Magistracy  by  the  Word  of  God  excluded  ? 

"IX.  Whether  the  provision  of  Commissioners  to  judge  of 
scandals  not  enumerated  (as  they  are  authorised  by  the  Ordi- 
nance of  Parliament)  be  contrary  to  that  way  of  government 
which  Christ  hath  appointed  in  His  Church,  and  wherein 
are  they  so  contrary  ? 

"  In  answer  to  these  particulars,  the  House  of  Commons  de- 
sires of  the  Assembly  of  Divines  their  proofs  from  Scripture ; 
and  to  set  down  the  several  texts  of  Scriptm-e  in  the  express 
words  of  the  same.  It  is  Ordered  that  every  particular 
minister  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  that  is  or  shall  be  at 
the  debate  of  any  of  these  Questions,  do,  upon  every  Piesolu- 
tion   which    shall  be  presented  to  this  House  concerning  the 


§5]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  81 

same,  subscribe  his  respective  name,  either  with  the  affirmative 
or  negative,  as  he  gives  his  vote :  And  that  those  that  do  dis- 
sent from  the  major  part  shall  set  down  their  positive  opinions, 
with  the  express  texts  of  Scripture  upon  which  their  opinions 
are  gi'ounded ! "  Journals  of  the  House  of  Commons,  Vol.  IV. 
pp.  519  sq. 

Is  it  too  severe  to  say  that  the  Assembly  deserved 
this  treatment  ?  They  had  certainly  laid  themselves 
fairly  open  to  the  attack ;  but  one  would  hardly  expect 
that  the  Puritan  Parliament  would  be  so  soon  baitino; 
the  Presbyterians  with  the  self-same  principle  that  they 
had  wielded  triumphantly  against  Prelacy.  Disingenu- 
ous as  was  this  petition  for  enlightenment,  the  Divines 
soberly  set  to  work  to  comply  with  it.  What  mass  of 
proof-texts  they  collected  we  shall  never  know,  though 
they  labored  for  eight  weeks  —  before  they  gave  it  up. 
Fortunately  a  reply  was  not  required  of  them.  A 
change  in  the  political  situation  restored  better  rela- 
tions between  the  House  and  the  Assembly ;  the  Com- 
mons withdrew  their  offensive  ''  Commission ;  "  the 
Divines  returned  chastened  in  spirit  to  seek  some  ac- 
commodation in  the  matter  of  Church  government ;  and 
the  Scottish  Commissioners  took  themselves  off  rather 
than  have  a  part  in  such  weakness.  The  accommodation 
ultimately  arrived  at  was  a  decision  to  tolerate  Inde- 
pendent dissent. 

The  Questions  of  the  House  of  Commons  have  never 

been   answered- — ^ because   they  never  could   be.      But 

those  are  not  the  only  hard  questions  that  might   be 

asked.     Others  have  been  asked,  and  in  their  answers 

is  given  the  history  of  English  sectarianism.     I  do  not 

ignore  the  singular  religious  forces  which  have  been  the 

life  —  to  a  large  extent  the  common  life  —  of  the  great 

Protestant  denominations  of  England  and  America ;  but 

6 


82  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

what  has  made  them  separate  as  well  as  alive  is  the 
crude  application  of  this  same  narrow  principle,  that 
nothing  is  legal  in  the  Church  which  cannot  be  proved 
by  Scripture.  Monarchical  episcopacy  has  no  warrant 
in  Scripture  —  hence  we  have  Presbyterianism.  But 
presbyteries  and  ruling  elders  are  just  as  little  war- 
ranted by  Scripture  —  hence  Independency.  One  great 
branch  of  the  Independents  discovered  that  there  is  no 
clear  instance  in  Scripture  of  the  baptism  of  infants  or 
of  any  other  mode  of  baptism  but  immersion  —  and  so 
we  have  the  Baptists.  Fresh-Water  Baptists  found  no 
Scriptural  instance  of  baptism  except  in  running  water. 
Seventh  Day  Baptists  could  find  no  express  warrant  for 
the  abrogation  of  the  Sabbath  or  for  its  transference  to 
the  first  day  of  the  week.  Presbyterian  sects  have  been 
formed  by  an  inversion  of  this  process :  the  rigorous 
members  have  not  advanced  beyond  their  brethren,  but 
have  been  left  behind  in  the  march  of  progress  —  some, 
because  they  could  find  no  warrant  in  Scripture  for  sing- 
ing other  hymns  than  those  of  David ;  others,  because, 
in  spite  of  David's  harp,  they  could  find  no  warrant  for 
instrumental  music.  One  sect  made  a  discovery  alto- 
gether out  of  line  with  these :  they  discovered,  namely, 
that  there  is  no  suggestion  in  Scripture  of  a  legally  con- 
stituted ministry,  and  that  the  only  warrant  of  a  jure 
divino  claim  is  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  These  so- 
called  Quakers  or  Friends  noticed  what  all  the  other 
sects  had  ignored ;  namely,  the  importance  of  the  pro- 
phetic office  in  the  early  Church,  —  though  they  in  turn 
were  equally  one-sided  in  denying  that  it  was  an  office, 
or  even  that  there  were  any  regularly  constituted  offices 
in  the  Church.^" 

^^  Another  office,  or  rather  function,  which  was  overlooked  was  that 
of  healing.     The  recognition  of  this  has  led  to  the  formation  of  new 


§5]  DENOMINATIONAL   CONTROVERSY  83 

The  numerous  controversial  works  which  were  written 
in  the  seventeenth  century  to  prove  this  or  that  particu- 
lar form  of  government  from  Scripture  are  utterly  with- 
out importance  for  our  modern  historical  study  of  the 
subject  of  early  Christian  organization,  for  they  rest 
upon  no  clear  picture  of  the  Apostolic  Age  —  the  mate- 
rials for  which  were  indeed  lacking.     The  same  may  be 

enthusiastic  sects.  The  adherents  of  the  Faith  Cure  do  not  usually 
constitute  themselves  a  separate  sect;  for  their  principle  can  hardly  be 
repudiated  by  any  Christian  denomination,  and  the  issue  is  properly 
drawn  on  the  question  of  fact.  The  so-called  Christian  Science,  which, 
is  often  vulgarly  confounded  with  this,  is  —  so  far  as  it  is  not  mere 
chicanery  —  a  radically  anti-Christian  philosophy.  But  there  is  one' 
small  though  interesting  sect  which  was  the  immediate  outcome  of  the 
modern  instances  of  faith  healing,  namely,  the  Irvingite,  or,  as  it  is 
self-styled,  the  Catholic  Apostolic  Church.  These  people  retain  all  the 
offices  that  ever  were  in  the  early  Church,  and  they  boast  of  "  angels  " 
besides.  But  they  have  as  purely  spiritual  an  idea  of  their  elaborately 
organized  official  ministry  and  of  its  functions  as  the  Quakers  have  of 
their  unofficial.  It  is  a  ministry  which  is  constituted  by  prophecy,  and 
in  its  higher  offices  it  enjoys  prophetic  and  other  miraculous  gifts.  The 
Protestant  sects  have  no  place  in  their  philosophy  for  such  ideas  —  hence 
this  revolt  against  a  non-prophetic  ministry  which  has  no  divine  gifts 
and  exercises  only  the  legal  authority  which  is  devolved  upon  it  by  the 
congregation.  On  the  other  hand  the  Catholic  Church  retains  these- 
primitive  ideas,  —  though  in  so  far  as  they  are  expressed  in  its  organiza- 
tion they  are  transformed  or  catholicized.  The  gift  of  healing  belongs 
properly  to  the  office  of  the  exorcist,  though  it  is  also  exercised  unofficially 
by  holy  persons.  The  ideal  of  unofficial  gifts  of  prophecy  is  still  cherished, 
and  the  function  is  recognized  in  the  official  charisma  veritatis  of  the 
bishop,  or  in  what  has  now  superseded  it,  the  infallibility  of  the  pope. 
It  is  often  remarked  that  in  America  the  Quakers  who  leave  their  now 
decadent  sect  usually  join  the  Episcopal  Church.  This  is  commonly 
regarded  as  an  instance  of  the  human  tendency  to  fly  from  one  extreme 
to  another ;  but  in  reality  it  is  because  the  Quaker  finds  there  an  idea  of 
the  Church  and  of  the  ministry  which  is  nearest  akin  to  his  own  — 
namely,  the  Catholic  idea,  which  survives  as  the  tenet  of  an  important 
school  within  the  Anglican  Church.  If  the  Quaker  must  accept  an 
official  ministry  he  is  inclined  to  accept  only  one  which  lays  claim  to 
spiritual  gifts.  The  transition  he  makes  is  pretty  nearly  that  which  was 
universally  made  in  passing  from  Primitive  to  Catholic  Christianity: 
instead  of  a  direct,  unofficial  and  personal  gift,  he  recognizes  one  which, 
is  officially  conferred  in  ordination. 


84  INTRODUCTIOX  [  I 

said  of  the  controversial  works  which  since  then  have 
appeared  with  ever  decreasing  frequency.  It  is  remark- 
able how  narrow  the  ground  of  controversy  remains,  and 
how  slavishly  one  author  after  another  repeats  the  tra- 
ditional arguments,  —  except  as  the  Biblical  claims  are 
gradually  dropped  in  favor  of  a  utilitarian  apology  for 
the  existing  order.  As  the  hope  vanishes  of  establish- 
ing an  ecclesiastical  polity  out  of  the  very  words  of 
Scripture,  the  historic  claims  of  the  episcopal  organiza- 
tion—  once  so  half-heartedly  asserted  and  so  confi- 
dently denied  —  loom  up  into  greater  importance,  and 
appear  not  only  satisfying  to  those  that  are  within  the 
Anglican  Church  but  imposing  to  those  that  are  with- 
out. For  here  is  an  organization  of  which  we  have  a 
perfectly  clear  historic  picture,  and  which  we  can  trace 
back  by  unimpeachable  evidence  almost  to  the  limits  of 
the  Apostolic  Age,  leaving  fair  room  for  the  popular 
presumption  that  its  unknown  origin  may  lie  within 
them.  The  Anglican  disputants  have  indeed  done  some 
service  in  keeping  alive  an  interest  in  early  Church  his- 
tory and  prompting  a  critical  valuation  of  its  literature, 
—  leading  especially  to  the  vindication  of  the  Ignatian 
epistles.  But  the  rest  of  all  this  long  controversy  over 
the  Biblical  form  of  Church  government  has  been  en- 
tirely without  scientific  result.  We  cannot  even  solace 
ourselves  with  the  poor  compensation  which  the  most 
recent  French  writer"  on  this  subject  suggests  to  us, 
that  "  it  is  to  the  stimulus  of  these  confessional  passions, 
ecclesiastical  history  owes  the  honor  of  being  for  many 
une  admirable  ecole  de  critique  et  d' erudition^ 

11  Reville,  Les  Origines  de  V Episcopat,  ISDi,  p.  8. 


§  6]       MODERN  STUDY  OF   CHURCH  ORGANIZATION  85 


§  6,  MODEKN   STUDY   OF   CHUECH   OEGANIZATION 

This  denominational  controversy,  so  far  from  devel- 
oping a  sound  historical  criticism,  seems  rather  to  have 
smothered  the  spirit  of  investigation ;  for  while  the  first 
stimulus  and  the  most  solid  achievements  in  our  modern 
historical  study  of  early  Church  organization  are  due  to 
Germany  (where  the  form  of  the  ministry  has  ever  been 
accounted  a  matter  of  slight  importance),  the  Beformed 
Churches  —  whether  in  the  Continent,  or  in  England,  or 
in  America  —  have  made  no  important  contribution  to 
the  subject.  Modern  study,  for  all  the  candor  of  its 
motive  and  the  soundness  of  its  method,  has  served 
rather  to  reveal  the  inherent  difficulties  of  the  subject 
than  to  dispose  conclusively  of  its  problems.  Conse- 
quently there  still  reigns  great  diversity  of  opinion 
about  the  organization  of  the  Church  before  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  albeit  none  of  the  opinions  now 
held  by  scholars  have  much  likeness  to  the  views  pre- 
scribed by  denominational  prejudice.  Upon  some  points 
there  is  too  little  historical  evidence  to  enable  one  to 
form  a  conclusive  judgment,  and  in  picturing  the  situa- 
tion as  a  whole  one  necessarily  relies  upon  a  theory 
which  cannot  be  expressly  proved  in  all  details,  but 
must  be  justified  by  its  internal  coherency  and  by  its 
agreement  with  all  the  well-ascertained  facts.  The  next 
few  pages,  giving  an  account  of  the  principal  works  on 
this  subject,  are  designed  especially  to  show  upon  what 
points  a  general  agreement  has  been  reached,  and  what 
are  now  the  most  important  subjects  of  controversy. 

The  freedom  from  confessional  prejudice  which 
characterizes  our  modern  study  of  Church  organization 
was  significantly  showed  in  the  first  important  work  on 


\ 


86  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

this  subject,  which,  though  it  was  by  a  Lutheran,  was 
designed  to  prove  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  monarchical 
episcopate.  Rothe  was  so  much  impressed  by  the  uni- 
versality of  this  order  at  an  early  date,  and  by  the  pur- 
pose which  it  had  served  in  the  history  of  the  Church, 
that,  while  recognizing  that  it  is  not  to  be  discovered  in 
the  communities  which  are  reflected  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings,  he  felt  that  its  establishment  must  be 
referred  to  a  council  of  the  apostles  meeting  about  the 
year  70.  He  felt  strongly  the  necessity  of  an  objective 
bond  of  unity,  which  he  found  in  the  first  age  in  the 
apostolic  college,  and  afterwards  in  the  bishops.  But 
for  all  this,  he  does  not  account  the  episcopal  order  es- 
sential for  the  Church,  nor  suppose  that  it  was  expressly 
ordained  by  the  apostles  to  endure  in  perpetuity.^ 

Baur  '^  promptly  and  convincingly  opposed  this  theory, 


^  Rothe,  Die  Anfange  der  christlichen  KircTie  und  ihre  Verfassung,  1837. 
Though  Rothe's  main  thesis  has  found  no  other  adherents,  his  work  as  a 
whole  has  proved  highly  stimulating,  and  many  of  his  observations  are 
of  lasting  value.  In  endeavoring  to  trace  the  development  of  Catholi- 
cism from  primitive  Christianity,  Rothe  was  not  influenced,  as  most 
students  since  Ritschl  have  been,  by  the  tendency  to  conti'ast  the  two 
phases  too  sharply.  On  the  contrary,  he  ever  seeks  the  common  term 
which  unites  them,  and  for  this  the  last  section  of  his  book,  which  dis- 
cusses the  development  of  the  Idea  of  the  Church  (confessedly  under 
the  influence  of  Mohler's  Einheit  in  der  Kirche),  is  peculiarly  worthy  of 
attention. 

2  F.  C.  Baur,  Ueber  den  Ursprung  des  Episcopats,  1838.  In  this  as  in 
so  many  other  respects  Baur's  criticism  has  rendered  valuable  service, 
though  in  its  direct  purpose  it  was  vitiated  by  the  Hegelian  notion  of  de- 
velopment, or  more  particularly  by  the  so-called  Tiibingen  hypothesis  of  a 
radical  opposition  between  the  Jewish  and  Pauline  forms  of  Christianity. 
His  suggestion  that  the  necessity  of  opposing  a  strong  defence  against  the 
Gnostic  heresies  accounts  for  the  concentration  of  power  in  the  hands  of 
the  single  bishop  has  been  accepted  by  all  subsequent  historians.  Given 
the  single  bishop,  all  is  fairly  clear  ;  but,  with  the  failure  of  Baur's  tlieory 
which  is  stated  above  in  the  text,  it  is  by  no  means  so  clear  how  the 
several  bishops  were  eliminated  to  make  way  for  the  07ie.  This  is  the 
problem  which  has  never  yet  been  cleared  up,  and  perhaps  never  will  be. 


§  6]       MODERX   STUDY   OF   CHUllCII   ORGANIZATION  S7 

though  that  which  he  set  up  in  its  stead  was  even  less 
tenable.  Like  Rothe,  he  recognized  the  monarchical 
episcopate  as  the  great  problem  of  the  history  of  Church  -' 
organization.  This  is  the  problem  which  has  continued 
to  engross  the  attention  of  students,  but  with  less  hope 
than  ever  of  finding  a  complete  solution,  since  there  is 
no  evidence  which  throws  direct  light  upon  the  time 
and  occasion  of  the  origin  of  the  single  bishop.  Baur's 
theory  was  the  most  apt  of  any  to  explain  the  problem, 
but  it  was  at  variance  in  several  respects  with  the  only 
historic  records  we  have  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  He 
supposed  that  the  monarchical  principle  was  in  a 
certain  sense  aboriginal  in  the  Church,  the  power  of 
government  being  lodged  in  the  hands  of  a  single 
presbyter  in  each  congregation  or  meeting,  —  of  which 
there  might  be  several  in  a  city.  It  was  natural  that 
to  one  of  the  presbyters  in  each  city  there  should  be 
accorded  certain  rights  of  presidency  and  leadership ; 
and  the  exigency  of  defence  against  the  Gnostic 
heresies  tended  to  centralize  the  powers  of  government 
in  his  hands.  This  gives  us  at  once  the  diocesan 
episcopacy  of  the  third  century  (a  rule  extending  over 
separate  congregations) ;  but  it  ignores  the  fact  that 
the  earliest  form  of  episcopacy  we  know,  is  a  parochial 
episcopacy,  with  bishop  and  presbyters  ruling  conjointly 
the  same  congregation ;  and  it  is  only  by  a  forced 
interpretation  of  New  Testament  texts  that  the  later 
form  of  congregational  government  by  a  single  pres- 
byter can  be  imported  into  the  Apostolic  Age.  Baur 
himself  was  ultimately  forced  to  give  up  his  inter- 
pretation of  Tit.  1:5  (Kara  ttoXlv  irpecrfivTepovi)  in 
the  sense  of  "  one  presbyter  in  each  city." 

Next    followed    the    important    work    of     Albrecht 
Ritschl,  Die  Entstehung  der  altkatholischen  Kirche  (2nd 


88  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

ed.  1857),  which  criticised  both  Rothe  and  Baur,  and 
advanced  a  new  theory  of  the  development  of  Chris- 
tian institutions  which  has  dominated  most  of  the  sub- 
sequent study.  Ritschl  saw  a  pecuHarly  Jewish  notion 
of  the  episcopate  exemplified  in  the  rule  of  James,  and 
afterwards  of  Simeon,  at  Jerusalem,  —  both  being 
blood-relatives  of  the  Lord.  He  considers  this  analo- 
gous to  the  government  of  Islam  by  the  family  of 
Mahomet.  So  far  as  the  idea  is  concerned  —  namely, 
that  the'bishop  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  representative 
of  Christ  —  he  finds  the  same  thins;  illustrated  at  Alex- 
andria,  and  in  the  Clementine  writings.  As  the 
representative  of  Christ,  it  is  evident  that  the  bishop 
must  exercise  not  merely  a  parochial  but  an  ecumenical 
authority,  and  such  was  clearly  the  authority  of  James. 
This  notion  is  by  no  means  generally  received,  but  it  is 
really  fundamental  to  Ritschl' s  theory,  for  it  leaves 
him  free  to  regard  the  Catholic  episcopate  —  which 
according  to  him  originated  in  Asia  Minor  and  sub- 
sequently spread  to  Rome  and  the  West  —  as  exclu- 
sively the  product  of  Greek  influences.  This,  the 
ultimately  triumphant  type  of  episcopate,  was  not 
ecumenical,  but  merely  local  in  character ;  not  rep- 
/  resentative  of  Christ,  but  of  the  apostles.  Without 
denying  the  peculiarity  of  the  government  of  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem,  it  may  be  affirmed  that  the  con- 
trast here  drawn  between  two  types  of  the  episcopate 
is  not  justified.  Ignatius  himself  regarded  the  bishop 
as  the  representative  of  the  Lord,  whereas  the  pres- 
byters represented  the  apostles.  And  corresponding  to 
this,  as  we  shall  see  later,  the  Catholic  bishop  enjoyed 
from  the  beginning  an  ecumenical  authority,  because 
the  Christian  assembly  in  which  he  ruled  was  regarded 
not  merely  as  a  local  branch  of  the  Church,  but  as  the 


§  G]       MODERN   STUDY   OF   CHURCH   ORGANIZATION  89 

Church.  As  Kitschl's  work  has  largely  determined 
the  subsequent  course  of  this  study,  other  prominent 
ideas  which  are  due  to  him  will  be  noticed  below  in 
summing  up  the  latest  opinions. 

The  first  candid  study  of  this  subject  which  appeared 
in  English  we  owe  to  Bishop  Lightfoot, — Dissertation 
on  the  Christian  Ministry  appended  to  his  Commeyitary 
on  Philippians  (1868).  The  candor  of  this  work,  as  well 
as  the  learning  and  authority  of  the  author,  has  given  it 
a  great  influence  both  within  and  without  the  Anglican 
Church,  and  it  probably  represents  to-day  the  most  gen- 
erally received  opmion  in  England  and  America.  It  has 
been  hailed  by  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians  as 
a  vindication  of  their  respective  claims,  and  even  the 
strenuous  supporters  of  jure  divino  episcopacy  have 
practically  adopted  its  premises,  though  they  build  a 
different  theory  upon  them  (see  above,  note  A).  The 
fundamental  theme  of  Lightfoot' s  Dissertation  was  the 
original  identity  of  the  names  presbyter  and  bishop, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  played  so  large  a  part  in  the 
earlier  English  controversy,  and  which  was  still  accepted 
in  his  time  by  most  Continental  scholars.  The  name 
and  office  of  presbyter  was  derived  from  the  Synagogue, 
while  the  name  bishop  was  used  exclusively  in  Greek 
communities.  On  p.  196  his  position  is  briefly  summed 
up  in  two  sentences :  "  It  is  not  therefore  to  the  apostle 
that  we  must  look  for  the  prototype  of  the  bishop." 
"  The  episcopate  was  formed  not  out  of  the  apostolic 
order  by  localization  but  out  of  the  presbyteral  by  ele- 
vation :  and  the  title,  which  was  originally  common  to 
all,  came  at  length  to  be  appropriated  to  the  chief  among 
them."  This  development  of  a  monarchical  episcopacy 
in  place  of  the  earlier  presbyterian  government  is  ex- 
plained (as  by  Rothe  and  Ritschl)  by  the  practical  ne- 


90  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

cessity  for  a  centralized  government  to  defeat  the  various 
tendencies  which  threatened  the  Church  with  division. 
It  was  the  East  which  was  most  inclined  to  a  monarchical 
form  of  government,  and  consequently  it  was  in  the  vig- 
orous Churches  of  Asia  Minor  (and  Syria)  that  the  epis- 
copate had  its  rise,  extending  only  gradually  to  the 
democratically  inclined  communities  of  Greece  and  Italy. 
But  though  this  notion  of  the  development  of  the 
episcopate  out  of  the  presbyterate  was  the  fundamental 
part  of  Lightfoot's  theory,  it  was  not  all  of  it,  nor  even 
the  most  characteristic  part.  This  was  merely  the  tra- 
ditional assumption,  with  which  no  scholar  was  then 
able  to  break.  The  distinctive  feature  of  his  work  is 
the  rehabilitation  of  Rothe's  theory,  which  presumes  the 
necessity  of  apostolic  sanction  for  so  important  and  so 
early  a  change  in  Church  organization.  It  is  only  upon 
the  supposition  that  this  most  distinctive  feature  of  his 
argument  has  been  generally  ignored,  that  we  can  ex- 
plain the  disappointment  which  Lightfoot's  work  occa- 
sioned among  the  Anglican  rigorists,  or  the  satisfaction 
with  which  it  was  welcomed  by  their  opponents.  One 
cannot  fairly  regard  the  Preface  to  the  sixth  edition 
of  the  Commentary  (1881)  as  a  retraction.  The  work 
may  justly  claim  to  be  "a  confirmation  of  the  statement 
in  the  English  Ordinal,"  and  no  such  plausible  argument 
has  ever  been  made  in  proof  of  the  apostolic  sanction  of 
the  episcopal  order.  Putting  aside  what  was  manifestly 
untenable  in  Rothe's  hypothesis,  Lightfoot  traces  the 
episcopate  historically  almost  as  far  back  as  the  end  of 
the  first  century  in  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.  Pressing 
the  presumption  that  it  originated  there,  it  wants  but 
little  to  persuade  us  that  it  was  due  to  the  early  exam- 
ple of  St.  James,  and  the  later  example  —  and  perhaps 
the  express  ordinance  —  of  St.  John. 


§  6]      MODERN    STUDY    OF    CHURCH    ORGxYNIZATION  91 

The  theory,  however,  requires  of  us  too  many  cassump- 
tions.  The  gap  between  the  Ignatian  letters  and  the 
death  of  St.  John  may  seem  a  small  one,  but  it  is  too 
great  to  be  bridged  over  by  an  assumption :  we  have 
reason  to  place  the  origin  of  monarchical  episcopacy 
rather  wdthin  than  before  that  interval.  Add  to  this 
the  vagueness  of  our  information  about  the  activity  of 
St.  John  in  Asia  Minor,  and  the  argument  appears 
doubly  weak.  But  more  important  than  this  is  the 
fact  that  all  the  late  evidence  adduced  in  favor  of  it 
does  not  suffice  to  prove  that  episcopacy  had  its  origin 
in  Asia  Minor.  On  the  contrary,  the  belief  has  lately 
been  gaining  ground  that  in  this  as  in  almost  all  other 
innovations  of  Church  government  Rome  furnished  the 
authoritative  pattern.  Lightfoot  himself  says  that  "  the 
reason  for  supposing  Clement  to  have  been  a  bishop 
is  as  strong  as  the  universal  tradition  of  the  next 
age  can  make  it."  However  this  may  be,  the  recogni- 
tion that  the  offices  of  bishop  and  presbyter  were  origi- 
nally distinct  gives  the  question  now  a  wholly  new 
aspect. 

While  Ritschl  accounted  for  the  development  of 
Catholicism  —  and  the  Catholic  episcopate  among  other 
things  —  by  the  influence  of  Greek  thought  upon  Chris- 
tianity, Renan  referred  more  definitely  to  Greek  and 
Roman  institutions  as  the  pattern  by  which  we  have  to 
explain  the  organization  of  the  Church.^  This  line  of 
inquiry  has  of  late  been  followed  with  more  or  less  gen- 
eral favor,  as  it  is  applied  to  any  or  all  of  the  institu- 
tions of  the  Church.  This  was  the  favorite  theme  of 
the  late  Professor  Hatch,  and  as  applied  to  the  matter 
of  our  present  study  he  exploited  his  idea  in  the  most 
extreme,  not  to  say  extravagant,  form  in  his  Organiza- 

8  Particularly  in  Les  Apotres  and  L'Eglise  chretienne. 


O.*-^ 


92  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

tion  of  the   Early    Christian    Churches,   4th  ed.   1892 
(being  the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1880).* 

■*  Hatch's  work  was  translated  by  Harnack  (who  prefaced  it  with  a 
valuable  dissertation)  under  the  title,  Die  Gesellschaftsverfassung  der 
christUchen  Kirchen  im  Altertum,  1883.  Hatch  applied  the  same  theory 
with  the  same  extravagance  to  the  P^ucharist  and  most  of  the  other 
usages  of  the  Church,  in  his  later  work.  The  Influence  of  Greek  Ideas  and 
Usages  upon  the  Christian  Church.,  4:th  ed.  1892  (being  the  Ilibbert  Lec- 
tures for  1888).  So  far  as  can  be  judged  from  our  own  scanty  literature 
on  this  subject,  Hatch's  theory  of  the  organization  of  the  Church  has 
met  with  more  general  favor  in  England  and  America  than  on  the  Con- 
tinent. In  translating  the  work,  Harnack  himself  suggested  important 
modifications,  and  has  since  then  changed  his  own  view  in  several  respects. 
Harnack  differs  especially  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  presbyters, 
and  his  views  on  this  subject  can  be  conveniently  consulted  in  his  article 
Presbyter  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica.  Harnack's  view  is  more  fully 
stated  in  his  Prolegomena  to  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  II.  1  &  2  (1884);  also  in  his  exceedingly  valuable 
work,  Die  Quellen  der  sogenannten  apostolischen  Kirchenordnung,  in  Texte 
und  Untersuchungen,  II.  5  (1886).  In  this  latter  work  Harnack  made 
the  brilliant  critical  discovery  of  two  sources  (which  he  names  A  and  B) 
belonging  appro'^imately  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century  and  under- 
lying the  so-called  Apostolic  Church  Order  of  the  end  of  the  third.  They 
are  of  the  highest  importance  for  the  history  of  Church  organization, 
and  I  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  refer  to  them.  Harnack  accom- 
panies this  with  a  dissertation  on  the  ofBce  of  lector.  It  is  convenient 
to  notice  here  the  discussion  of  Church  organization  by  Hans  Achelis, 
on  the  basis  of  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus, —  Texte  und  Untersuchungen, 
VI.  4  (1891).  Harnack  seems  to  be  diffident  about  referring  these  canons 
to  Hippolytus  or  even  to  Rome,  —  as  Achelis  unhesitatingly  does,  — 
Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur,  first  part,  pp.  643  sq.  But  they 
are  now  generally  referred  to  about  the  year  200  (barring  interpola- 
tions and  the  defects  of  an  exceedingly  indirect  transmission),  and 
ascribed  to  Rome  —  though  this  with  somewhat  more  reserve.  I  am  con- 
vinced that  the  date  at  least  is  approximately  correct,  and  on  this  suppo- 
sition they  constitute  one  of  the  most  important  documents  for  the 
history  of  Church  organization.  On  the  other  hand  Funk  (Dt'e  aposto- 
lischen Konstitutionen,  1891,  p.  275)  places  them  after  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  —  that  is,  according  to  him,  later  than  a.  d.  500  —  and  is 
inclined  to  ascribe  them  to  the  East  rather  than  to  the  West.  —  See  also 
Harnack's  article  on  church  organization  in  Theol.  Litteraturzeilung,  1889, 
pp.  417-429.  In  The  Expositor,  Third  Series,  vol.  V.,  Jan.-June,  1887, 
there  is  a  series  of  interesting  articles,  by  Sanday,  Harnack,  and  Gore, 
on  the  same  subject. 


§  6]      MODERN  STUDY  OF   CHURCH  ORGANIZATION  93 

The  following  is  a  sketch  of  the  characteristic  points 
of  Hatch's  theor}^ :  The  fact  that  the  early  converts  to 
Christianity  gradually  (!)  learned  to  combine  together, 
he  explains  by  the  '•  general  tendency  in  the  early  cen- 
turies of  the  Christian  era  towards  the  formation  of 
associations,  and  especially  of  religious  associations  "  ! 
Hence  the  resemblance  of  the  Christian  Churches  to  the 
various  pagan  clubs  or  confraternities  may  be  taken 
for  granted  —  it  is  remarked  that  "  outward  observers 
sometimes  placed  them  in  the  same  category" — and 
the  only  question  that  arises  is,  "  What,  qua  associations, 
was  their  point  of  difference  ?  "  The  answer  is.  The 
predominance  of  the  philanthropic  aim  in  the  churches. 
Both  the  name  and  function  of  the  bishop  (eVtV/coTrog) 
were  borrowed  from  the  Greek  guilds,  —  in  many  of 
which,  as  mutual  benefit  societies,  the  economic  aspect 
was  as  important  as  it  was  in  the  churches.  The  chief 
economic  officer  in  each  local  Christian  society  was  the 
bishop.  Essentially  he  was  the  steward  or  administra- 
tor of  the  Church  property  :  to  him  as  president  (partic- 
ularly in  connection  with  the  Eucharist)  the  alms  of  the 
people  were  brought ;  and  by  him  they  were  distributed, 
with  the  help  of  the  deacons,  who  were  his  ministers  in 
this  work.  To  this  function,  so  important  in  the  early 
Church,  the  bishop  owed  his  peculiar  power  and  posi- 
tion in  the  local  community  ;  and  with  such  a  start  as 
this  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  that  he  gradually  acquired 
authority  over  the  spiritual  functions  which  had  for- 
merly belonged  to  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers. 

The  presbyters  or  elders  are  sharply  contrasted  with 
the  bishops :  they  are  disciplinary  officers  of  the  local 
societies.  This  office  is  to  be  explained  in  general  by 
the  respect  due  to  seniority;  but  the  particular  form 
which  it  assumed  in  the  Christian  Churches  was  due  ( so 


94  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

far  at  least  as  Gentile  communities  are  concerned)  to 
imitation  of  the  senate  or  council  which  was  universal 
in  Roman  municipalities  and  associations.  The  name, 
however,  was  borrowed  from  the  similar  office  estab- 
lished in  the  Jewish-Christian  Churches,  which  in  its 
turn  was  copied  from  the  "  synedrion  "  or  local  court  of 
the  dispersed  Jewish  communities.  From  this  it  is 
evident  that  both  bishops  and  presbyters  (and  deacons) 
were  essentially  local  officers;  and  even  in  the  local 
community  they  exercised  no  spiritual  office,  no  minis- 
try of  the  word,  no  cure  of  souls  in  the  proper  sense. 
Why  a  plurality  of  bishops  was  originally  needed  for 
this  function,  or  how  the  single  bishop  came  ultimatel}^ 
^  to  supersede  them,  the  theory  does  not  explain.     For 

this,  the  fundamental  problem.  Hatch  has  no  new  clue, 
and  can  only  repeat  the  old  arguments. 

Hosts  of  presumptions  rise  against  this  theory,  and  it 
needs  strong  proof  to  withstand  them.  The  theory  is 
weakest,  however,  where  it  most  needs  to  be  strong,  for 
it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  officers  of  pagan  guilds 
were  commonly  called  eVto-KOTrot  —  on  the  contrary,  it 
seems  to  have  been  an  exceedingly  rare  name  in  this 
connection.  Harnack  makes  a  much  needed  amend- 
ment in  recognizing  the  teaching  function  of  the  pres- 
byter, and  in  emphasizing  the  consideration  which  the 
bishop  enjoyed  as  chief  officer  of  the  cidtiis  —  particu- 
larly of  the  Eucharist  —  in  the  absence  of  the  more 
expressly  spiritual  ministry  (the  apostles,  prophets,  and 
teachers)  who  were  itinerant,  or  at  least  by  the  very 
nature  of  their  office  could  not  be  confined  to  the  local 
society.  He  adverts  also  to  the  fact  that  most  of  the 
guilds  had  a  religious  basis  in  some  particular  cult  which 
they  fostered.  The  original  function  of  the  bishop  is 
thus  not  so  totally  incommensurate  with  his  subsequent 


§  G]      MODERN   STUDY  OF   CHURCH  ORGANIZATION  95 

powers.  But  the  prime  objection  still  stands,  that  the 
Christians  held  the  pagan  guilds  in  peculiar  abhorrence, 
just  because  of  their  religious  associations.^  Most  of  the 
Continental  scholars  who  still  hold  this  theory  suppose 
only  an  unconscious  imitation,  an  unreflecting  inclination 
to  follow  the  popular  trend  of  the  age.^ 

But  on  the  other  hand,  those  who  are  inclined  to  rail 
against  Hatch's  theory  will  do  well  to  reflect  how  little 
difference  there  is  between  it  and  the  view  so  long  cur- 
rent in  England,  to  the  effect  that  the  primitive  organi- 
zation of  the  Churches  was  copied  from  that  of  the 
synagogues.  The  learned  work  of  Vitringa,  De  Syna- 
goga  Vetere  (1st  ed.  1696,  2nd  ed.  1726),  is  the  basis  of 

5  The  unreasonableness  of  supposing  a  direct  or  conscious  imitation 
by  the  Church  of  the  Greek  thiasi  (religious  guilds)  or  of  the  mysteries 
is  very  well  showed  by  Cheetham,  The  Mysteries,  Pagan  and  Christian, 
1897,  —  though  the  author  is  especially  contending  against  Hatch's 
application  of  the  theory  to  the  province  of  Christian  worship. 

^  It  was  De  Rossi  that  first  gave  the  impulse  to  this  whole  trend  of 
argument,  in  Roma  sotterranea,  vol.  I.  (1804),  pp.  101  sqq.,  vol.  III.  pp. 
507  sqq.  But  he  is  in  no  wise  responsible  for  the  extravagant  conclusions 
to  which  his  hint  has  led.  His  purpose  was  to  explain,  not  the  internal 
organization  of  the  Christian  Churches,  but  their  legal  status  in  relation 
to  the  State.  Though  Christianity  was  an  illicit  religion,  the  Churches 
did  hold  property —  in  particular  the  vast  cemeteries  at  Rome  which  it  is 
De  Rossi's  chief  glory  to  have  discovered.  It  is  perfectly  true,  as  Hatch 
says,  and  it  is  perfectly  natural,  that  outward  observers  sometimes  placed 
the  Christian  societies  and  the  heathen  guilds  in  the  same  category  ;  and 
it  is  a  plausible  suggestion  that  the  Church  at  Rome,  for  instance,  was 
recognized  by  the  State  as  a  burial  society  —  the  only  sort  of  guild  which 
the  Roman  law  permitted  after  the  early  part  of  the  second  century.  In 
my  Monuments  of  the  Early  Church  (1901),  pp.  53  sqq.  I  have  stated  De 
Rossi's  theory  at  length,  my  purpose  being  to  present  the  points  of  view 
which  are  most  prominent  to-day  in  the  study  of  Christian  archaeology. 
But  over  against  this  (p.  61)  I  set  some  very  significant  words  of 
Duchesne's  (from  a  work  intended  for  private  circulation,  Les  Origines 
chrttiennes,  c.  xxiii.  §  4),  which  point  out  upon  how  slight  a  basis  the 
theory  rests,  and  how  great  improbabilities  it  suggests.  For  a  more 
fundamental  criticism  of  the  theory  see  Sohm,  n.  22  to  p.  75,  —  or  as  I 
have  reproduced  his  argument  below  in  c.  iv.,  n.  H. 


96  INTRODUCTION  [I 

this  view,  which  is  still  popular  as  an  explanation  of 
the  presbyterate.  But,  after  all,  the  Synagogue  was  a 
product  of  Hellenic  influence,  as  its  name  suggests ;  and 
the  question  at  issue  as  between  these  two  views  is 
merely  whether  the  Church  borrowed  its  organization 
from  the  Greeks  at  second  or  at  first  hand.  Both  views 
assume  that  the  organization  of  the  Church  was  ex- 
pressly a  legal  one,  and  neither  of  them  gives  a  divinely 
sanctioned  form  of  Church  government. 

Schiirer's  admirable  study  of  Jewish  organization" 
has  disposed  of  the  idea  that  the  Synagogue  could  have 
furnished  tlie  pattern  of  Church  government.  This  is 
now  all  but  universally  acknowledged,  so  far  as  the 
general  scheme  of  organization  is  concerned,  and  the 
deacon's  office  in  particular  is  no  longer  referred  to  this 
source.  But  the  analogy  between  the  Christian  and 
Jewish  presbyter  is  still  maintained  by  some,  though  it 
is  evidently  inconsistent  with  a  lofty  idea  of  the  Chris- 
tian presbyterate,  since  the  Jewish  presbyters  were  rather 
civil  than  religious  officers,  dealing  with  discipline  and 
not  with  worship. 

The  notion  which  so  long  persisted  of  the  original 
identity  of  presbyters  and  bishops  is  now  finally  dis- 
credited.    This  is  the    chief  service  of  Hatch's  book.^ 

''  Schiirer,  Gesch.  des  jiid.  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Jesii  Ckristi,  2nd  ed. 
1886,  vol.  2,  pp.  356  sqq.,  513  sqq.  —  Eng.  ed.  1890,  div.  II.,  vol.  II.,  pp. 
54-68,  243  sqq.  Schiirer  is  the  first  to  give  us  an  accurate  knowledge  of 
the  organization  of  the  Jewish  communities  in  Palestine  and  in  the 
dispersion. 

8  The  theory  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  but  two  titles  for  the  same 
office  agrees  very  well  with  the  passage  in  the  20th  chapter  of  the  Acts 
(vv.  17,  28),  and  it  raises  no  difficulty  in  the  few  other  cases  where  the 
fTTLo-Konos  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  —  Phil.  1 :  1 ;  1  Tim.  3:2; 
Tit.  1 :  7.  But  it  cannot  be  said  to  explain  the  whole  situation  as  it  is 
presented  to  us  even  in  the  Scriptures,  and  it  is  inconsistent  with  some 
of  the  earliest  extra-canonical  authorities.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  in 
what  different  ways  scholars  are  trying  to  do  justice  to  the  facts  which  are 


§  6]       MODERN    STUDY   OF   CHURCH   ORGANIZATION"  97 

In  ascribing  the  episcopal  office  exclusively  to  the 
Gentile  Churches  and  to  the  example  of  pagan  guilds, 
Hatch  also  did  much  to  break  the  general  consensus  of 
English  opinion  which  ascribed  the  luJiole  organization 
to  the  pattern  of  the  Synagogue.  But  his  own  theory 
is  fast  3nelding  to  the  recognition  that  the  organization 
of  both  Gentile  and  Jewish-Christian  Churches  was  sub- 
stantially the  same,  and  that  this  organization  ivas  the 
unique  and  si^ontaneous  creation  of  the  Christian  faith? 

here  recognized.  The  late  Dr.  Hort,  in  his  last  course  of  lectures,  pub- 
lished posthumously  under  the  title  The  Christian  Ecclesia  (1900),  ex- 
plains the  word  enia-Kojros,  wherever  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  and 
in  1  Clement,  as  a  descriptive  and  unofficial  designation,  applied  to  the 
office  of  presbyter,  but  not  preempted  by  it,  so  that  it  remained,  so  to 
speak,  no  man's  property  until  it  was  appropriated  by  the  bishop  properly 
so  caUed.  On  the  other  hand  Sohm  regards  the  term  presbyter  as  the 
unofficial  title,  which  more  especially  indicated  a  class  of  notables  in  the 
Church  (the  aged  or  experienced  members  —  who  were  not,  however, 
definitely  appointed  officers),  but  might  be  employed  too,  as  a  title  of 
honor,  for  bishops,  teachers,  and  apostles. 

^  On  this  point  especially  cf .  Weizsiicker,  Das  apostolische  Zeitaller  der 
christlicken  Kirche,  2nd  ed.  pp.  546  and  618  sq.  In  The  Expositor,  vol.  V. 
(1SS7),  pp.  338,  339,  Harnack  denies  that  the  Christian  bishops  and  deacons 
had  any  relation  to  Jewish  organization  on  the  one  hand,  or  to  pagan 
civic  or  collegial  organization  on  the  other.  See  also  Kiihl,  Die  Gemein- 
deordnung  in  den  Pastoralbriefen,  1885.  Ldning,  Die  Gemeindeverfassimg 
des  Urchristentums,  1889,  pp.  20  sq.  gives  the  ablest  criticism  of  Hatch's 
theory  of  the  relation  of  the  episcopate  to  the  Greek  guilds,  —  though  he 
himself  clings  (like  Holtzman,  Die  Pastoralbriefe,  1880)  to  the  notion 
that  the  presbyter  was  copied  after  the  Jewish  prototype.  The  modern 
German  literature  on  the  subject  of  Church  government  is  exceedingly 
voluminous.  An  excellent,  though  not  altogether  impartial,  account  of 
tlie  latest  theories  is  given  by  Schmiedel,  art.  Ministnj  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Biblica,  together  with  an  acute  criticism  of  the  views  of  Harnack 
and  Hatch.  Loofs'  vigorous  criticism  of  Harnack's  theory  (cf.  Studien 
u.  Kritiken,  1890,  pp.  619-658)  does  not  bear  against  the  modification 
of  that  theory  as  presented  by  Sohm.  Our  English  literature  is  scanty. 
Besides  the  important  works  of  Lightfoot,  Gore,  and  Wordsworth,  already 
commented  upon,  I  would  mention  Cunningliam,  The  Growth  of  the  Church 
in  its  Organization  and  Institutions,  Edinburgh,  1886;  and  Allen,  Christian 
Institutions,  1897,  which  substantially  reproduces  the  views  of  Harnack 
and  Hatch.    More  briefly,  Rainy,  The  Ancient  Catholic  Church,  1902;  and 

7 


98  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

Nevertheless  the  opinion  still  prevails  that  the  organi- 
zation of  the  primitive  Christian  Church,  however  origi- 
nal it  was  in  form,  was  essentially  not  different  in  hind 
from  any  other  secular  organization  —  be  it  a  Eoman 
collegium  or  a  modern  club.  That  is  to  say,  it  was 
a  corporation  including  a  definite  circle  of  persons  who 
by  its  constitution  were  empowered  to  take  common 
action  within  the  scope  of  the  society,  enacting  legisla- 
tion, or  exercising  administration  and  discipline.  That 
this  was  originally  the  character  of  Church  organiza- 
tion —  as  it  is  to-day  —  has  been  taken  for  granted  in 
all  discussions  of  the  subject.  Yet  this  is  in  fact  the 
question  upon  which  all  else  hangs.     Before  discussing 

McGiifert,  A  History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  1897;  —  the  last 
three  in  the  International  Theological  Library.  There  is  still  less  written 
on  this  subject  in  French  :  Reville,  Les  Oriyines  de  L'Episcopat,  1894,  is  the 
latest  work  with  which  I  am  acquainted.  This  author  applies  the  canons 
of  historical  criticism  with  such  exaggerated  severity  that  he  defeats  their 
object.  He  is  so  scrupulous  to  observe  the  caution  which  difference  in 
age  or  locality  imposes  upon  our  investigation  of  various  historical  docu- 
ments, that  he  excogitates  as  many  Church  polities  as  there  are  groups 
of  documents  (according  to  his  criticism)  within  the  New  Testament  — 
which  is  simply  to  abandon  all  hope  of  reaching  a  coherent  solution  of 
the  problem.  Hatch,  too,  has  made  a  great  display  of  the  methods  of 
historical  study.  I  shall  let  that  suffice,  and  add  nothing  of  my  own  on 
this  subject ;  for  I  suppose  that  educated  persons  are  nowadays  perfectly 
familiar  with  the  canons  of  historical  investigation.  It  is  quite  another 
matter  to  apply  them.  The  difficulties  in  this  particular  study  are  not 
peculiar  in  kind.  But  it  may  be  well  to  remark  that  the  common  diver- 
gency of  opinion  about  the  date  or  authorship  of  the  various  documents 
(New  Testament  and  other)  upon  which  we  have  to  depend,  is  not  of 
such  vital  moment  to  our  study  as  might  be  supposed.  For  my  own 
part  I  attach  great  weight  to  the  general  historical  reliability  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  and  I  am  inclined  to  ascribe  the  Pastoral  Epistles  to 
St.  Paul ;  but  so  long  as  they  are  both  regarded  as  documents  of  the 
first  century  the  results  of  our  investigation  are  not  materially  affected. 
No  theory  will  generally  commend  itself  which  does  not  tally  substan- 
tially with  these  documents;  and,  on  any  view  of  their  authority,  the  best 
proof  of  any  theory  is  in  the  fact  that  it  harmonizes  with  the  Scriptural 
accounts. 


§6]       MODERX   STUDY    OF   CHURCH   ORGANIZATION"  99 

whether  the  government  of  the  early  Church  was  mo- 
narchical, or  re^Dresentative,  or  democratic,  we  need  to 
raise  the  inquiry  whether  it  was  at  all  an  organization 
in  legal  terms,  or  whether  it  was  not  rather  in  its  nature 
incommensurable  with  civil  or  other  forms  of  secular 
government  with  which  it  is  compared.  All  other 
questions  about  Church  government  have  been  hotly 
disputed :  this  fundamental  point  has  simply  been  as- 
sumed, because  it  is  on  all  sides  taken  for  granted  that 
without  legal  organization  no  well  ordered  society  can 
exist. 

The  correct  view  of  early  Christian  organization  was 
first  suggested  by  the  Teaclmig  of  the  Tioelve  Apostles, 
or  more  particularly  by  Harnack's  brilliant  study  of 
this  recently  discovered  document.  It  was  evident  that 
the  chief  officers  as  there  described  —  apostles,  prophets, 
and  teachers  —  could  have  no  place  in  a  legally  organ- 
ized scheme.  What  constituted  their  office,  what  proved 
their  authority,  was  nothing  else  than  the  possession  of 
a  personal  charisma  (a  spiritual  gift) ;  which  they  exer- 
cised by  virtue  of  divine  right,  not  of  any  human  law ; 
which  they  had  received  "  not  of  men,  neither  by  man  ;  " 
and  which  they  employed  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole 
Church,  not  of  a  mere  local  congregation.  The  whole 
Church,  it  is  evident,  was  charismatically  organized,  not 
legally.  A  charismatic  organization  of  human  society 
is  therefore  conceivable  ;  and  if  the  whole  Church  might 
be  organized  in  this  wise,  there  is  no  good  reason  why 
every  local  society  of  Christians  might  not  also  be.  But 
before  this  last  conclusion  Harnack  arbitrarily  stopped, 
drawing  a  sharp  line  of  demarcation  between  the  charis- 
matic offices  (the  ministry  of  the  word  ^:»(2r  excellence), 
which  belonged  to  the  Church,  and  the  administrative 
offices  (including  the  leaders  of  the  cultus),  which  be- 


':> 


100  INTRODUCTION  [  I 

longed  exclusively  to  the  local  congregation.  This  is 
the  notion  which  has  since  broadly  prevailed,  and  which 
constitutes  the  basis  of  Hatch's  theory.  The  local  or- 
ganization (of  bishops,  deacons,  and  presbyters),  if  it  is 
not  pneumatic  (charismatic),  can  only  be  conceived  as 
legal.  And  vice  versa,  if  these  offices  repose  solely  upon 
a  legal  constitution,  they  are  of  necessity  local,  they 
have  no  valid  exercise  outside  the  corporation :  they 
constitute  a  congregational  government,  but  are  no  part 
of  Church  government  —  for,  confessedly,  the  Church 
was  not  legally  organized. 

I  have  here  stated  the  various  views  upon  the  prob- 
lems of  Church  government  which  were  prevalent 
before  Sohm's  work  appeared.  Sohm's  trenchant  ar- 
gument cuts  deeper  than  these  theories.  He  recognizes 
that  in  the  Church,  the  body  of  Christ,  there  can  he  no 
other  than  a  spiritual  government,  no  authority  but  the 
word  of  God,  and  no  authoritative  office  which  does  not 
rest  primarily  upon  the  ministry  of  the  word.  In  the 
second  place,  the  unit  of  the  Church  is  not  the  congre- 
gation, but  the  individual  believer  with  his  personal 
charisma.  The  Church  is  not  the  mathematical  sum 
of  the  Churches,  nor  is  it  in  any  wise  to  be  measured 
extensively :  wherever  disciples  are  gathered  together 
(though  they  be  but  two  or  three),  there  is  the  Church 
—  and  in  a  sense  it  is  the  whole  Church,  for  it  lacks 
nothing  to  its  completeness,  since  Christ  is  in  the  midst 
of  it.  Therefore,  thirdly,  the  so-called  congregational 
government  is  in  reality  Church  government;  it,  too, 
demands  a  charismatic  ministry,  a  ministry  of  the  word, 
and  it  can  endure  no  other.  The  administration  of 
Church  property  (God's  property),  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cipline, and  the  conduct  of  worship  belong  to  the  min- 


§  0]       MODERN   STUDY   OF   CHURCH   ORGANIZATION        101 

ister  of  the  word  as  such.  There  is  no  legal  corporate 
form  for  the  body  of  Christ,  but  only  such  corporate 
reality  as  the  Scriptural  figure  indicates.  In  the  fourth 
place,  as  there  is  no  such  thing  as  congregational  gov- 
ernment, but  only  Church  government,  there  is  no  au- 
thority which  is  merely  local :  —  all  authority  in  the 
Church  is  ecumenical,  because  it  rests  upon  the  pos- 
session and  exercise  of  God's  word.  The  bishop,  for 
instance,  was  no  mere  administrative  officer  —  he  was 
that  because  he  was  essentially  and  originally  a  min- 
ister of  the  word,  and  he  therefore  exercised  from  the 
first  a  more  than  local,  namely,  an  ecumenical  author- 
ity. In  the  Church  there  can  be  no  human  sovereignty 
—  either  monarchical  or  democratic;  for  the  only  law 
in  the  Church  is  God's  will,  which  is  made  known 
through  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers ;  while  tlie 
people  have  only  to  discern  and  accept/" 

10  Cf.  Sohm,  §  1. 


CHAPTER    II 
THE    IDEA    OF    THE    CHURCH 

§  7,  SIGNIFICANCE   OF   THE   NAME   ECCLESIA 

THE  word  Church  (the  same  as  the  Scotch  Kirk  and 
the  German  Kirclie)  is  our  uniform  translation  for 
the  New  Testament  iKKXrjcria.  It  is  a  word,  however, 
which  by  reason  of  its  derivation,  as  well  as  on  account 
of  the  associations  which  have  gathered  about  it  in  the 
course  of  the  Christian  centuries,  does  not  convey  to  us 
exclusively  or  precisely  the  Scriptural  notion.  It  com- 
monly signifies  the  house  of  worship,  as  does  the  Latin 
word  ecclesia  (a  mere  transliteration  of  the  Greek),  with 
its  Romance  derivatives,  eglise  and  chiesa}     We  are  not 

1  Church  (Scotch  Kirk,  German  Kirclie,  Anglo-Saxou  Cyrice)  seems 
to  be  derived  from  the  Greek  Kyrica,  transmitted  perhaps  through  the 
Arian  Goths  — cf.  s.  v.  Kirche,  Grimm's  deutsches  Worterbuch  ;  also  Max 
Miiller,  Lectures  on  the  Scie7ice  of  Language,  lecture  6 ;  AVedgwood,  Diet, 
of  Engl.  Etymology,  s.  v.  Church;  and  Skeat,  Etymological  Dictionary. 
As  early  as  the  fourth  century  KvpioKov  was  used  for  the  Chm-ch  building 
(the  Lord^s  house),  though  the  feminine  form,  from  which  our  word 
seems  to  be  directly  derived,  did  not  appear  till  later.  The  primary 
signification  of  the  word  was  therefore  the  house  of  worship,  and  only 
in  a  secondary  sense  did  it  come  to  designate  the  congregation  which 
gathered  there.  Hence  our  common  use  of  the  word  Church  is  etymo- 
logically  justified,  and  the  Puritan  attempt  to  limit  it  to  the  congregation 
(using  "  meeting-house "  for  the  building)  encountered  so  great  an 
obstacle  in  the  traditions  of  our  language  that  it  is  not  likely  to  be  made 
again.  We  have  to  recognize,  however,  that  our  English  word  does  not 
accurately  render  the  New  Testament  idea,  and  for  the  purposes  of  care- 
ful study  we  must  purge  it  of  some  of  its  most  familiar  associations. 
For  this  reason  Hort  (The  Christian  Ecclesia)  prefers  the  Latin  word 
ecclesia.    This  word  is,  indeed,  colorless  to  us,  but  only  because  it  is  strange. 


§7]  SIGNIFICANCE   OF    THE   NAME   ECCLESIA  103 

mucli  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  congregation  itself  as 
the  Church ;  and  if  the  word  is  so  used  at  all,  it  refers  to 
the  congregation  in  its  organized  capacity,  as  a  legal 
corporation.  Even  among  scholars  there  is  a  tendency 
to  contrast  the  Church,  either  as  the  empirical  or  as  the 
ideal  whole,  with  the  individual  congregations,  the 
parochial  units  which  compose  the  whole.  But  in  thus 
using  the  word  we  must  recognize  that  it  is  no  longer 
equivalent  to  the  New  Testament  iKKkr^a-ia,  which,  as  we 
shall  see,  signifies  expressly  the  congregation,  whether 
it  be  grear"or  small,  whether  itbe  conceived  of  as  an 
empirical  or  as  an  ideal  entity.  It  is  significant  that 
the  New  Testament  has  no  expression^for  the  distinction 
between  the  whole  and  tFe  part  which  is  aimed  at  in  our 
use  of  the  words  Church  and  congregation. 

In  Classical  Greek  the  word  iKKXrja-Ca  denoted  exclu- 
sively the  popular  assembly  of  free  citizens  in  a  demo- 
cratic state  "formally  summoned  by  the  herald  for  the 
exercise  of  government.  In  the  post-Classical  period  it 
was  used  for  any  assembly  of  the  people,  for  a  festal 
or  even  a  tumultuous  assembly  (as  in  Acts  19  :  32-41);. 
but  still  only  for  a  j^opular  assembly,  and  so  not  for  the: 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Latin  word  with  its  Romance  derivatives,  and  the 
Greek  word  itself,  though  they  passed  through  a  course  of  development 
the  very  opposite  of  that  which  our  word  church  has  followed,  have 
acquired  the  same  associations :  denoting  originally  the  congregation, 
they  came  to  be  applied  secondarily  to  the  house  of  worship.  Altogether 
our  common  English  word  is  to  be  preferred  even  in  learned  discussion, 
not  only  because  it  is  vain  to  resist  the  force  of  usage,  but  chiefly  because 
the  name  Church  is  already  so  rich  in  religious  associations  that  it  im- 
ports more  to  define  and  elevate  its  meaning  than  to  invent  another 
term  in  its  place.  Luther  translated  the  New  Testament  term  by  what 
is  undoubtedly  its  nearest  equivalent,  "  Gemeinde,"  —  instead  of  the 
"  blinden,  undeutlichen  "  word  Kirche,  which  in  his  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament  he  used  for  idolatrous  temples.  This  usage  has  not 
prevailed  even  in  Germany,  and  although  it  had  at  first  an  influence 
upon  the  English  translations  of  the  Scripture  it  is  altogether  strange 
to  us  now.     Hort  (op.  cit.  p.  2)  says:   "'Congregation'  was  the  only 


104  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

governing  assembly  of  a  club  or  private  corporation  — 
except  in  an  unusual  sense.^ 

The  New  Testament  idea  of  the  Ecclesia  is  in  sub- 
stantial agreement  with  this,  though  it  more  directly 
reflects  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  Septuagint  and  in 
later  Jewish  parlance.  ^EKKXrjcrCa  is  the  word  which 
the  Septuagint  uses  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  as  the 
rendering  for  ^nj^.  SvuaycoyT],  which  occurs  in  the 
minority  of  instances  for  the  above,  is  on  the  other  hand 
the  invariable  rendering  for  ^nj^.  These  two  Hebrew 
words  are  consistently  distinguished  in  our  Revised  Ver- 
sion, the  former  being  rendered  by  "  assembly," ~"  the 
latter  by  "  congregation."  The  slight  difference  which 
exists  between  these  two  words  is  accurately  marked  by 
this  rendering :  the  latter  word  indicates  rather  the  con- 
gregation as  a  whole,  or  the  totality  of  the  united  people  ; 
the  former  denotes  rather  the  cong-reo-ation  as  it  is  called 
together  in  festal,  religious  assembly,  or  where  stress  is 
laid  upon  the  relation  of  the  people  to  tlieir  God.  It 
would  seem,  however,  that  after  the  Exile  the  former 
word  (qdhdl),  which  was  ever  the  more  definite  and 
formal,  came  to  combine  the  shades  of  meaning  belong- 
ing to  both ;  and  thus  iKKhqoria,  as  its  primary  Greek 
equivalent,  would  naturally  mean  for  Greek-speaking 
Jews  the  congregation  of  Israel  quite  as  much  as  the 
assembly  of  the  congregation.^     At  all  events  the  New 

rendering  of  eKKkTja-ia  in  the  English  Xew  Testament  as  it  stood  througli- 
out  Henry  VIII.'s  reign,  the  substitution  of 'church'  being  due  to  the 
Genevan  revisers,  and  it  held  its  ground  in  the  Bishops'  Bible  in  no  less 
primary  a  passage  than  Matt.  xvi.  18  till  the  Jacobean  revision  of  1611, 
which  we  call  the  Authorized  Version." 

'^  See  Sohm,  p.  16,  notes  2  and  3.  In  note  4  on  the  following  page  he 
disposes  of  Hatch's  claim  that  (kkXtjo-Iu  was  ordinarily  used  for  the  assem- 
bly of  a  guild. 

3  See  Hort,  The  Christian  Ecclesia,  pp.  3  sq.,  and  Kdstlin  in  Herzogs 
Realencyklopadie,  art.  Kirche. 


§  7]  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   NAME   ECCLESIA  105 

Testament  use  of  the  word  — -  particularly  by  St.  Paul, 
■vvho  employs  it  most  frequently  — -  denotes  not  merely 
the  congregation  as  it  is  publicly  assembled,  but  the 
people  of  God  as  such.  The  notion  of  calling  or  sum- 
moning, which  belongs  to  the  etymology  of  both  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Greek  word,  was  not  prominent  in  the 
use  of  either.  It  is  sometimes  supposed  that  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  election,  the  calling  out  from  a  larger 
body,  was  indicated  in  the  word  iKKXrjata  —  from  e/cKa- 
Xeo) ;  but  the  compound  Greek  verb  has  not  this  mean- 
ing, and  even  in  the  New  Testament  the  noun  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  associated  with  this  idea. 

It  may  be  surmised,  however,  that  Jesus'  choice  of 
the  word  eKKkiqcria  (and  the  subsequent  New  Testament 
use  of  it)  was  due  to  some  of  these  less  express  conno- 
tations. Fundamentally  it  denoted  the  same  thing  as 
the  "nation"  or  the  "people"  of  God,  but  it  was  evi- 
dently more  appropriate  than  either  of  these  significant 
Old  Testament  names,  to  express  the  character  of  the 
people  of  the  New  Covenant,  the  true  Israel  of  God, 
which  was  constituted  not  by  race  kindred,  nor  by  nation- 
ality, but  by  God's  individual  choice  and  by  man's  im- 
mediate, personal  relationship  to  him :  —  more  concretely, 
by  fulfilment  of  the  conditions  of  Christian  discipleship, 
that  is,  belief  in  Jesus  and  obedience  to  him.  At  the 
same  time  the  social  ideal  was  no  less  expressly  empha- 
sized in  the  word  ecclesia  (standing  for  both  assembly 
and  congregation)  than  in  the  words  people  or  nation. 
The  express  meaning  of  the  word  and  its  Old  Testament 
associations  precluded  a  purely  abstract  conception  of 
the  Christian  Ecclesia  — like  the  "  invisible  Church  "  of 
the  Protestant  theologians  —  as  the  mere  numerical 
totality  of  individual  believers.  It  has  already  been 
remarked  that  the  word  was  used  to  denote  the  body  of 


106  THE   IDEA    OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

Christian  disciples  as  such,  and  not  merely  as  they  were 
actually  convened  :  but  for  all  that,  the  Ecclesia  was 
ever  regarded  as  a  social  entity ;  the  divine  call,  indi- 
vidual as  it  was,  was  a  call  into  a  divinel}^  constituted 
society,  which  was  the  sphere  of  Christian  discipleship, 
in  which  the  obligations  of  loving  fellowship  and  service 
were  to  be  realized.  The  spiritual  bonds  which  united 
the  disciples  with  one  another  were  more  real  than  any 
which  were  constituted  by  actual  assembly  in  one  place. 
And  yet  the  actual  assembly  was  essential  to  the  prac- 
tical realization  of  the  ideal,  and  the  notion  of  assembly 
belonged  to  the  primary  and  proper  sense  of  the  word 
Ecclesia  even  in  the  New  Testament.  More  than  this, 
it  is  only  in  assembly  —  of  two  or  three  at  the  least  — 
that  the  Ecclesia  has  the  capacity  to  act  (Matt.  18  : 
17-20). 

Important  as  is  the  social  aspect  of  the  Ecclesia  upon 
the  human  side,  on  the  divine  side  it  is  more  essential 
still :  the  whole  value,  importance,  and  power  of  the 
Ecclesia  (both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  New)  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  an  assembly  together  ivith 
God,  —  and  not  merely  at  his  call.  To  meet  with  God 
it  must  be  a  holy  assembly  :  according  to  Deut.  23  no 
wicked  or  unclean  person  might  "  enter  into  the  Ecclesia 
of  Jehovah."  Holiness  was  ascribed  to  it  in  a  proper 
sense,  as  expressive  of  its  actual  character,  and  not 
merely  in  view  of  the  moral  task  which  was  2^^oposed 
to  it.  In  Deut.  33  :  3,  4,  the  ''  peoples  "  (or  "  tribes  ") 
and  "  the  assembly  of  Jacob  "  correspond  with  "  his 
saints  "   (LXX.   ol  rjytacriJievoL). 

The  common  Christian  use  of  "  the  saints  "  as  a  de- 
scriptive name  for  the  whole  congregation  or  Church 
undoubtedly  had  its  root  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  we 
are  not  justified  in  supposing  in  either  case  that  the 


§7]  SIGNIFICANCE  OF   THE  NAME  ECCLESIA  107 

word  is  to  be  taken  in  an  unnatural  sense,  —  still  less 
that  a  discrimination  was  made  between  an  invisible 
congregation  composed  solely  of  saints,  and  a  concrete 
and  visible  one  which  is  made  up  of  good  and  bad.  The 
difficulty  is  that  holiness  is  not  predicated  of  the  Church' 
as  a  whole,  as  an  ideal  abstraction  which  exists  inde- 
pendently of  its  members;  but  of  the  members  them- 
selves collectively  ("  the  saints  ") ;  though  it  is  .evident 
that  among  them  there  must  be  some  whose  character 
does  not  correspond  with  the  title.  Luther's  explana- 
tion was  that  the  word  is  used  synecdochically,  de- 
scribing the  whole  by  the  part.  We  have  to  beware, 
however,  of  importing  our  own  discriminations  into  the 
New  Testament  idea  of  the  Church.  This  objective 
mode  of  speech  was  peculiarly  consonant  with  the  Jew- 
ish type  of  mind,  but  it  is  not  strange  that  it  did  not 
long  survive  among  the  Gentiles. 

It  is  true  that  none  but  holy  persons  are  to  be  thought 
of  as  assembling  in  effective  communion  with  God,  and 
that  the  assembly  can  be  regarded  as  a  Church  only  in 
so  far  as  it  is  composed  of  true  disciples  convened  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord.  But  though  there  be  actually  false 
members  in  the  Church,  it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell 
upon  the  fact,  —  still  less  to  construct  our  definition  of 
the  Church  with  a  view  to  obviating  this  incongruity. 

We  cannot  say  that  the  New  Testament  writers  did 
not  reflect  upon  the  incongruity  of  false  membership  in 
the  Church  (cf.  1  John  2 :  19) ;  nor  that  St.  Paul  in 
particular  would  have  experienced  any  difficulty  in  ap- 
plying to  the  Church,  if  the  occasion  had  demanded  it, 
the  same  distinction  which  he  uses  in  relation  to  the 
ancient  Israel  in  Rom.  9 :  6,  —  "  For  they  are  not  all 
Israel  which  are  of  Israel ; "  but  there  is  no  hint  that 
such  considerations  did  actually  influence  the  apostolic 


108  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [II 

definition  of  the  Church.  Even  in  the  early  Catholic 
period  the  Church  was  still  defined  with  sole  reference 
to  its  true  members ;  and  so  long  as  the  character  of 
the  great  majority  of  the  disciples  corresponded  sub- 
stantially with  the  ideal,  it  was  possible  to  ignore  the 
exceptions.  It  was  only  when  wide-spread  corruption 
forced  men  to  dwell  upon  this  incongruity,  that  they 
felt  obliged  to  choose  between  a  radical  purification  of 
the  Church,  or  a  new  definition  of  it  such  as  the  trend 
of  Catholic  development  demanded,  —  that  is,  as  an 
institute,  which  enjoyed  the  character  of  holiness  apart 
from  any  consideration  of  the  character  of  its  members. 
Our  Lord's  parables  about  the  wheat  and  the  tares,  and 
the  net  containing  good  and  bad  fishes,  furnished  a  con- 
venient pretext  for  this  definition,  but  no  sound  justifi- 
cation of  it.  Even  if  we  were  justified  here  in  simply 
substituting  the  Church  for  the  Kingdom ;  yet,  rightly 
interpreted,  the  first  parable  (Matt.  13  :  24-30)  does  not 
make  the  "  field  "  the  express  analogue  of  the  Kingdom  : 
rather,  like  the  "  net "  in  the  second  parable  (Matt.  13  : 
47-50),  it  represents  the  world,  the  secular  sphere  of  the 
Kingdom's  growth. 

§  8,  JESUS'   USE   OF   THE   WOED   CHUKCH 

The  use  of  the  word  eKKkiqcria,  it  is  well  known,  is 
ascribed  to  Jesus  only  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew, 
and  there  only  in  two  passages:  16:  18  sq.  and  18: 
17  sqq.  It  is  not  strange  that  doubts  have  been  raised 
about  the  trustworthiness  of  the  record.  Jesus  spoke 
much  about  the  Kingdom  of  God,  but  these  two  refer- 
ences to  the  Church  —  unsupported  by  any  other  Gospel 
—  stand  so  isolated  in  his  teaching,  that  they  have  even 
been  taken  for  interpolations  of  a  later  age,  in  favor  of 


§  8]  JESUS'   rSE   OF   THE   WORD   CHURCH  109 

ecclesiastical  authority,  —  though  interpreting,  it  might 
be,  genuine  sayings  about  the  Kingdom.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  motive  of  such  falsification  is  not  clear ; 
and  if  there  were  no  such  record  we  should  be  tempted 
to  assume  some  solemn  saying  of  our  Lord  to  account 
for  the  general  and  uniform  use  of  the  term  Ecclesia 
from  the  very  beginning  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  We  may 
even  guess  that  these  two  occasions  were  not  the  only 
ones  upon  which  Jesus  spoke  of  his  Church.  The  sec- 
ond passage  assumes  that  the  idea  was  a  familiar  one, 
at  least  in  a  Jewish  sense ;  and  it  conceives  very  con- 
cretely of  the  Christian  community.  We  are  unfortu- 
nately not  in  a  position  to  determine  how  far  the  current 
Jewish  usage  ^  might  explain  our  Lord's  employment  of 
this  term,  but  what  has  been  already  said  about  its  use 
in  the  Old  Testament  shows  that  its  meaning  could  not 
have  been  altogether  strange  to  the  disciples.  It  is  evi- 
dent, however,  that  we  must  take  the  word  Church  in 
its  essential  meaning,  as  the  equivalent  of  congregation 
and  assembly,  and  strip  it  of  the  associations  which  re- 
flect its  historical  development  (precise  forms  of  govern- 
ment and  cultus),  if  we  are  to  believe  that  it  was  used 
by  Jesus  and  was  intelligible  to  his  disciples. 

The  truth  is,  there  is  no  presumption  against  such 
a  use  of  the  word  Church  —  or  even  "  my  Church  "  — 
as  is  recorded  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  unless  we  are 

1  Hort,  pp.  13  sq.,  refers  to  Ps.  74  :  2  (usually  supposed  to  be  a  very 
late  Psalm)  and  the  significant  rendering  of  it  in  St.  Paul's  address  to  the 
Ephesian  elders  in  Acts  20 :  28,  finding  there  a  hint  that  the  two  Old 
Testament  words  which  we  translate  "  congregation  "  and  "  assembly  " 
might  have  acquired  in  later  Jewish  use  a  theological  significance  about 
equal  to  the  solemn  designation  "  people  "  of  God.  The  Psalm  reads  : 
"  Remember  thy  congregation  which  thou  didst  purchase  of  old,  didst 
redeem  to  be  the  tribe  of  thine  inheritance."  The  LXX  translates  the 
original  'edhah  as  usual  by  uvvayuiyr],  but  St.  Paul  substitutes  fKKXTjaia : 
"to  feed  the  Church   of  God  which  fie  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 


110  THE  IDEA  OF  THE   CHURCH  [11 

prepared  to  answer  in  the  negative  the  more  radical 
question,  whetlier  Jesus  entertained  at  all  the  intention 
of  founding  a  Church,  or  any  separate  organization  of  his 
disciples,  in  distinction  from  the  national  congregation 
of  Israel. 

The  parables  of  the  Kingdom  of  heaven  hardly  fur- 
nish a  pertinent  answer  to  this  inquiry.  They  do  not 
tell  us,  for  example,  whether  a  particular  social  organ- 
ization is  a  requisite  for  the  consummation  of  that 
divine  rule,  or  for  the  realization  here  on  earth  of 
that  divinely  generated  life  with  its  promise  of  eternal 
blessedness,  which  is  what  Jesus  meant  by  the  King- 
dom. The  Kingdom  is  already  present,  in  so  far  as  it  is 
realized  in  those  who  receive  the  seed  of  the  word  in 
good  soil  where  it  springs  up  and  bears  fruit.  But  the 
wheat  and  the  tares  grow  in  the  same  field,  and  caution 
is  given  against  the  endeavor  to  separate  them.  Good 
and  bad  fish  are  included  in  the  same  net.  Most  of  the 
parables  have  to  do  with  the  personal  reception  of  the 
divine  word,  the  inward  apprehension  of  it ;  and  even 
in  describing  the  new  life  which  is  thereby  engendered 
nothing  is  said  of  the  reciprocal  activities  and  common 
ordinances  belonging  to  a  separate  community.  The 
moral  and  religious  forces  of  the  Kingdom,  slow  and 
hidden  like  the  leaven,  operate  in  the  whole  mass  of 
mankind.  In  the  parable  of  the  mustard  seed  the  King- 
dom is  represented  as  an  objective  unity,  spreading 
itself  abroad  over  the  earth ;  but  there  is  nothing  here 
to  tell  us  how  far  those  who  are  incorporated  in  this 
growth  are  sundered  from  the  congregation  of  Israel,  or 
bound  together  in  a  social  organization  of  their  own. 

C.  The  relation  of  the  Church  to  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  a 
question  upon  which  opinions  widely  differ.  Upon  Jesus'  first 
mention  of  the  Church  (Matt.  16  :  18,  19)  he  set  it  in  relation 


§  8]  JESUS'   USE   OF   THE   WORD   CHURCH  111 

to  the  Kingdom  —  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I 
build  my  Church.  ...  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the 
Kingdom  of  heaven ; "  —  but  what  the  relation  is,  is  not  specifi- 
cally stated.  From  Jesus'  use  of  the  two  words  in  the  same 
context  we  may,  however,  gather  this  much,  that  they  are  not  ■ 
simply  identical,  —  as  the  Catholic  theologians,  following  Au-' 
gustine,  have  taken  them  to  be.  But  neither  are  they  to  be 
sharply  contrasted,  as  it  is  now  the  Protestant  fashion  to  do.i 
The  true  relation  it  is  very  difficult,  perhaps  impossible,  for  us 
to  define ;  but  we  may  approximate  a  true  idea  of  it  by  elimi- 
nating the  more  signal  errors  of  the  common  interpretation. 
When  the  Church  is  conceived  in  terms  of  its  external  organ- 
ization (as  by  the  Eeformed  theologians,  who  have  never  rid 
themselves  of  the  Catholic  notion)  the  contrast  with  the  King- 
dom is  inevitable.  But  when  we  think  of  the  Church  in  Jesus' 
sense,  as  the  congregation  of  his  disciples,  we  find  that  it  lies 
on  the  same  plane  with  the  Kingdom,  and  closely  corresponds 
with  it,  —  so  far  at  least  as  the  latter  is  realized  in  this  present 
world,  in  distinction  from  its  final  and  perfect  revelation,  and 
without  reference  to  its  preparation  in  the  Old  Covenant.  It 
needs  to  be  remarked  by  the  way  that  the  apostolic  conception 
of  the  Church  was  bounded  by  the  earthly  sphere  and  included 
no  reference  to  the  souls  of  the  faithful  departed  —  what  we  call 
the  Church  triumphant.  Even  so  far  as  this  present  age  is  con- 
cerned, the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  did  not  take  especial  account 
of  such  social  organization  as  is  essential  to  the  notion  of  the 
Church  or  congregation.  And  yet  the  members  of  both  Church 
and  Kingdom  were  the  same  persons.  Only  those  could  count 
as  true  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ  who  were  truly  joined 
together  as  his  disciples  and  assembled  in  his  name,  —  having 
consequently  their  part  in  the  Kingdom.  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  any  one  who  has  received 
the  seed  of  the  word  and  has  a  part  in  the  Kingdom  will  remain 
foreign  to  the  brotherhood  of  Christ's  disciples. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  difference  between  the 
Kingdom  and  the  Church  is  the  difference  between  inward  and 
outward,  or  between  ideal  and  real.  The  Kingdom  has  its  real 
existence  in  the  character  of  its  members  and  their  social  con- 


\ 


112  THE   IDP:A   of   THE  CHURCH  [II 

duct;  it  has  its  outward  and  visible  signs  in  the  preaching  of 
the  word  and  in  the  fruit  which  it  bears ;  though  none  of  these 
things  are  the  objects  strictly  of  sensible  "  observation."  The 
Church,  likewise,  though  it  appears  to  the  world  as  an  outward 
association  like  other  human  societies,  is  constituted  in  reality 
the  assembly  and  Church  of  Christ  only  by  reason  of  the  in- 
ward bonds  which  unite  all  the  members  to  him.  The  essence 
of  the  Church  does  not  lie  in  externals.  Jesus  prescribed  for 
his  Church  no  external  forms  of  organization,  or  of  dogma,  or  of 
cultus  —  except  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  these,  ac- 
cording to  the  third  and  sixth  chapters  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  are 
interpreted  as  sacraments  of  the  Kingdom. 

Equally  at  fault  is  the  distinction  drawn  by  Eitschl  and  his 
followers,  which  is  to-day  the  most  popular  one.  It  does  not 
correspond  at  all  to  the  sense  of  these  words,  as  used  by  Christ 
or  by  the  apostolic  writers,  to  distinguish  the  Church  as  an  as- 
sociation for  religious  ends,  from  the  Kingdom  as  an  ethical 
institute.  The  Kingdom  of  God,  according  to  this  notion,  finds 
its  realization  in  those  who  believe  in  Christ  and  live  in  the 
mutual  exercise  of  brotherly  love;  while  the  Church,  on  the 
other  hand,  exists  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  divine  service  — 
understood  in  the  sense  of  a  common  worship  or  cult.  But 
what  stands  first  and  foremost  in  Jesus'  teaching  about  the  con- 
ditions of  membership  in  the  Kingdom  is  the  right  attitude  and 
behavior  totvards  God  ;  and  the  Church  as  a  practical  organiza- 
ition  is  made  possible  by  no  other  bond  than  that  of  brotherly 
love,  exhibiting  itself  in  mutual  comfort  and  edification.  The 
fact  is  that  this  distinction  ignores  one  of  the  most  noteworthy 
characteristics  of  Christianity,  according  to  which  "  divine  ser- 
vice," in  its  proper  sense,  is  not  fulfilled  in  terms  of  a  religious 
cult,  but  in  ethical  will  and  conduct  —  expressed  largely  in  the 
service  of  man.  That  is  to  say,  divine  and  human  service  are 
rather  identified  than  contrasted,  the  moral  and  the  religious 
ideals  are  united. 

Some  would  take  the  Kingdom  in  a  more  comprehensive  sense, 
as  including  the  whole  life  and  activity  of  its  members  and 
furnishing  the  solution  of  all  the  practical  problems  which 
their  position  in  the  world  —  their  complex  social  and  civil 


§  S]  JESUS'   USE   OF  THE   WORD   CHURCH  113 

relations  —  forces  upon  them.  Of  this  it  can  only  be  said  that 
it  is  more  comprehensive  than  the  New  Testament  idea  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  which  is  restricted  to  the  central  region  of 
morality  and  religion  —  a  heart  freely  given  to  God,  a  life 
which  is  lived  in  him  and  yet  finds  its  blessedness  in  the  meek 
yoke  of  social  service,  association  in  brotherly  love  which 
has  no  other  object  but  to  realize  that  life  and  acquit  that  ser- 
vice. 

The  fact  that  the  Kingdom  of  God,  which  was  the  pre- 
dominant theme  of  Jesus'  teaching  receded  to  a  secondary  and 
almost  an  insignificant  place  in  the  teaching  of  the  Apostolic 
Age,  is  a  problem  for  which  we  have  no  adequate  solution.  It 
is  especially  remarkable  that  St.  Paul,  who  makes  so  much  of 
the  Church,  should  make  so  little  reference  to  the  Kingdom. 
It  is  not  because  he  counted  the  latter  idea  the  less  important 
or  significant.  On  the  contrary,  he  associated  with  the  idea  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God  a  heavenly  perfection  which  the  actual 
development  of  the  Church  was  still  far  from  realizing,  — 
which  it  could  never  realize  before  the  second  coming  of  Christ 
and  the  radical  transformation  which  he  must  then  effect. 
Toward  this  consummation  the  Church  tends,  and  already  the 
"  saints  "  enjoy  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  Kingdom  —  right- 
eousness, peace  and  joy.  Not  only  are  they  made  meet  to 
be  inheritors  of  the  saints  in  light,  but  already  they  are  trans- 
lated into  the  Kingdom  of  the  Son,  and  made  to  sit  with 
him  in  heavenly  places  (Col.  1  :  12  sq. ;  Ephes.  2  :  6).  But  for 
St.  Paul,  as  well  as  for  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  the  Kingdom 
belongs  essentially  to  the  coming  aon,  it  remains  still  to  be 
"  mherited  "  (2  Thes.  1  : 5  ;  1  Cor.  6 :  9  sq. ;  15  :  24,  5«  ;  Gal.  5:21; 
Ephes.  5  : 5  ;  2  Tim.  4:1;  Heb.  12  :  28  ;  James  2  : 5  ;  2  Pet.  1:11). 
In  so  far  as  Jewish  apocalyptic  expectations  of  the  Kingdom 
were  still  cherished,  it  was  manifestly  impossible  to  account 
the  actual  condition  of  the  Church  an  adequate  realization 
of  them.  St.  Paul  so  idealized  the  Church  that  he  might  —  so  it 
seems  —  have  identified  it  with  the  loftiest  conception  of  the 
Kingdom, — tbut  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  did  not  so  do.  We 
may  say  that  no  Apostle  succeeded  in  maintaining,  with  such 
lively  reality  as   did  Jesus,  a  conception  of  the  Kingdom  as 

8 


114  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

a  present  blessing,  a  possession  here  and  now  to  be  attained,  a 
heavenly  consummation  which  is  actually  realized  on  earth 
in  the  persons  of  Christ's  disciples.  None,  I  would  say,  unless 
it  be  St.  John,  who  (though  he  too  gave  up  the  use  of  the  word), 
interpreted  most  truly  the  Lord's  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  in 
terms  of  "eternal  life"  which  he  characteristically  conceived 
as  a  present  possession  —  life  now  or  never,  now  and  forever. 

I  cannot  too  much  regret  that  the  admirable  little  work  by 
Geerhardus  Vos,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  the  Kingdom 
of  God  and  the  Church,  New  York,  1903,  did  not  appear  in 
time  to  assist  me  in  formulating  the  above  definition  of  a  very 
difficult  subject.  I  am  glad,  however,  to  be  able  to  append 
here  a  reference  to  this  simple  and  popular  book,  which  I  can- 
not but  account  the  ablest  work  that  has  appeared  on  this 
th^me. 

/ 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  in  the  idea  of  disci- 

plesMp  a  direct  preparation  for  the  Kingdom.  Actually, 
the  disciples  were  united  by  very  real  bonds  of  associa- 
tion ;  and  the  more  deeply  they  apprehended  the  char- 
acter of  their  relation  to  Jesus  —  not  as  a  mere  rabbi 
but  as  the  spiritual  Lord  —  the  more  clearly  they  real- 
ized the  ties  of  Christian  brotherhood.  They  constituted 
Christ's  flock  (Luke  12  :  32  ;  John  10  :  1  sqq.),  accord- 
ing to  a  metaphor  which  derives  a  solemn  significance 
from  its  Old  Testament  use,  and  which  seems  here  to 
stand  mid-way  between  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  and 
that  of  the  Church.  The  formal  choice  of  the  Twelve 
was  a  step  towards  the  organization  of  the  congregation 
of  Christ's  disciples  ;  and,  though  this  doubtless  symbol- 
ized the  ultimate  inclusion  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel, 
the  disciples  could  not  but  feel  their  separateness  within 
their  race  and  nation,  since  in  the  actual  present  it  was 
they  alone  who  had  accepted  the  opportunity  and  be- 
come in  fact  sons  of  the  Kingdom.  Their  separate- 
ness became  more  sharply  defined  as  Jewish  hate  and 


§  8]  JESUS'   USE   OF   THE   WORD    CHURCH  115 

repudiation  of  Jesus  drew  to  its  culmination.  Then,  if 
not  before,  it  must  have  been  evident  that  with  Jesus' 
departure,  for  which  he  was  endeavoring  to  prepare 
them,  they  must  still  hold  together  to  labor  for  the 
common  cause,  as  the  mission  of  the  Twelve  and  of 
the  Seventy  had  set  them  example. 

It  seems  as  if  in  his  teaching  about  the  Kingdom  on 
the  one  hand,  and  about  discipleship  on  the  other,  Jesus 
had  reached  nearly  the  same  point  by  following  opposite 
ways.  Starting  with  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom,  it  seems 
to  have  been  his  constant  effort  to  jDurge  it  of  the  con- 
crete associations  which  were  current  among  the  Jews, 

—  but  surely  without  meaning  to  deny  all  the  social 
implications  of  the  word.  On  the  other  hand,  the  idea 
of  discipleship,  which  from  the  very  outset  of  his  min- 
istry he  began  to  develop,  had  few  precise  associations 
of  any  kind,  and  needed  only  to  be  defined,  —  as  it 
gradually  was  by  the  actual  character  and  constitution 
of  the  society  which  Jesus  formed.  Starting  with  the 
idea  of  the  Kingdom,  Jesus  made  it  substantially  coin- 
cident with  discipleship;  and  in  terms  of  discipleship 
he  developed  the  idea  of  the  Church.  The  full  notion 
of  the  Church  —  in  j)articular  its  religious  significance 

—  could  not  possibly  be  realized  so  long  as  Jesus  re- 
mained with  his  disciples  upon  terms  of  human,  social 
intercourse.  It  was  only  when  he  passed  again  into  the 
heavenly,  invisible  sphere,  and  religious  intercourse  was 
begun  with  him  there,  that  the  highest  conception  of 
the  Church  could  be  realized,  —  in  particular,  that  the 
disciples  could  comprehend  what  was  meant  by  assem- 
bling in  his  name.  This  affected  not  only  the  idea  of  the 
spiritual  or  invisible  unity  of  the  Church,  but  its  con- 
crete organization;  for  to  this  spiritual  community  of 
the  Church  with  Christ  —  no  longer  merely  with  him, 


116  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

but  m  liim  —  there  could  not  but  correspond  a  closer 
religious  and  social  unity  among  the  members.  The 
idea  of  discipleship  progressed  from  stage  to  stage,  and 
the  idea  of  the  Church  followed  its  progress.  To  form 
their  idea  of  the  nature  of  Christian  discipleship,  Jesus 
left  his  disciples  largely  to  the  teaching  of  facts,  that  is, 
to  the  apprehension  they  must  form  from  the  actual 
progress  of  the  congregation  which  he  was  a-building. 
So,  too,  he  never  defined  his  Church,  nor  laid  down 
rules  for  its  organization ;  but  left  his  followers  to  learn 
its  true  character  from  the  development  which  was 
conditioned  by  the  very  fact  of  his  Resurrection  and 
Ascension,  and  from  its  subsequent  progress  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Spirit. 

St.  John's  Gospel  throws  light  upon  this  subject. 
This  is  preeminently  the  Gospel  of  discipleship.  It 
seldom  speaks  of  the  Kingdom  by  name,  but  it  con- 
stantly interprets  one  side  of  this  notion  in  terms  of 
discipleship,  and  so  deepens  this  conception  that  it  sub- 
stantially corresponds  to  the  apostolic  idea  of  the 
Church  in  its  Godward  aspect. 

It  is  significant  that  Peter's  inspired  confession, 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ,"  was  the  occasion  of  Jesus'  first 
mention  of  the  Church.  Everything  indicates  that  this 
recognition  of  his  higher  character  was  a  crisis  in 
Jesus'  career :  —  from  that  time  he  began  to  prepare 
his  disciples  for  his  suffering  fate.  Before  this,  he  could 
proclaim  the  Kingdom  of  God  without  seeming  to  the 
Jews  to  exceed  the  measure  of  the  prophetic  office ; 
but  it  was  only  when  his  disciples  acknowledged  him 
as  the  Messiah  —  and  only  to  them  —  that  he  could 
speak  of  his  Church.  In  saying  that  he  would  "  huild  " 
his   Church    (Assembly),  it  is  evident  that  he  uses  the 

word    "assembly"    C^'^\l)  in  the  high  religious  sense 


§8]  JESUS'   USE   OF    THE   WORD   CHURCH  117 

which  was  associated  with  the  word  "people"  m  the 
Old  Testament.  The  figure  of  building  is  applied  even 
more  expressly  to  the  Church  in  1  Cor.  3:9;  Ephes. 
2  :  20-22 ;  1  Pet.  2  :  5.  According  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment it  was  God  who  "  built "  his  people  Israel,  and 
the  prophets  looked  forward  to  a  rebuilding,  which  like- 
wise could  be  accomplished  by  no  other  than  God  him- 
self. We  might  rather  expect  Jesus  to  say  in  this 
place  that  he  would  build  again  the  people  of  Israel. 
This  was  doubtless  substantially  his  meaning.  We 
have  seen,  however,  why  the  words  "congregation"  or 
"  assembly  "  might  be  preferable  to  a  word  which  bore 
the  connotation  of  racial  exclusiveness  —  and  inclusive- 
ness.  And  in  saying  that  he  will  build  —  not  rebuild 
—  his  Church  he  asserts  even  a  higher  claim  of  Messi- 
anic dignity,  and  characterizes  his  building  as  a  new 
creation,  and  as  a  possession  more  peculiarly  his  own. 
In  this  first  passage  Jesus  speaks  of  his  Church  in 
the  most  general  sense.  In  Matt.  18  :  17-20,  however, 
he  refers  specifically  to  the  congregation  of  his  disciples 
as  outwardly  assembled.  This,  we  have  seen,  is  the 
proper  sense  of  /H)^?  which  was  surely  the  word  our 
Lord  used.  The  notion  of  the  Church  is  here  very 
concrete.  The  word  is  used  as  though  it  necessarily 
imp)lied  a  local  assembly.  The  Church  is  thought  of 
as  convened  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  authorita- 
tively its  internal  affairs.  The  special  instance  here 
contemplated  is  the  hearing  and  judging  of  complaints 
of  brother  against  brother,  —  a  case  which  may  involve 
the  exercise  of  discipline,  and  even  excommunication. 
But  concretely  as  the  Church  is  here  conceived,  nothing 
is  said  of  the  character  of  its  organization,  nor  is  any  — 
not  to  say  any  particular  —  organization  at  all  implied. 
On   the  contrary,  the   regularity  and   validity  of    the 


118  THE  IDEA  OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

Church's  action  is  made  to  depend  solely  upon  the 
reality  of  the  disciples'  relation  to  Christ.  The  Church 
remains  essentially  a  spiritual  fact,  however  concretely 
it  may  be  conceived.  It  is  an  assembly  or  Church 
though  there  be  but  two  or  three,  and  those  that 
gathered  together  in  Jesus'  name  are  assured  of  his 
presence  in  the  midst  of  them.  His  presence  surely 
implies  that  the  deliberations  and  actions  of  the  Church 
are  thereby  regulated  in  conformity  with  his  will ;  for 
nothing  short  of  this  is  consistent  with  the  relation 
of  disciples  to  their  Master,  or  of  sons  of  the  Kingdom 
to  their  Lord  and  King.  We  may  take  it,  too,  that  the 
consent  or  agreement  which  is  required  as  touching  any 
thing  that  may  be  asked  in  prayer  is  likewise  con- 
ditioned by  the  fact  of  spiritual  unity  in  Christ.  In 
any  case,  agreement  —  and  the  fact  of  being  "  gathered 
together"  which  it  implies  —  is  essential  to  the  idea  of 
the  Church :  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  invisible 
Church  in  which  the  members  have  no  concrete  rela- 
tions with  one  another. 

It  is  commonly  thought  that  Jesus  here  speaks  of 
a  local  Church,  in  distinction  from  the  Church  uni- 
versal. It  is  true  that  the  Church  is  here  conceived  of 
as  locally  assembled,  and  it  could  of  course  be  assembled 
no  otherwise.  One  may  suppose,  too,  that  it  need 
not  be  an  assembly  of  all  the  disciples.  But  of  the 
assumed  distinction  between  local  or  particular,  and 
universal,  there  is  no  hint.  We  may  rather  say  that 
Jesus  did  not  reflect  whether  there  might  be  various 
particular  Churches  in  different  places,  but  simply 
posits  that  loherever  his  disciples  are  gathered  together, 
there  is  the  place  for  such  affairs  to  be  brought  for 
settlement.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  a  serious 
problem    is   presented   here;  but   as   it   emerges  more 


§8]  JESUS'   USE  OF   THE  WORD   CHURCH  119 

clearly  in  the  apostolic  use  of  the  word  church,  the 
full  significance  of  it  will  be  considered  in  the  next 
section. 

Even  here,  however,  it  is  plain  that  the  powers  of  the 
local  assembly  —  though  they  be  but  two  or  three  — 
are  the  powers  of  the  loliole  Church.  The  word  church 
expresses  not  an  extensive  idea  but  an  intensive.  Its 
value  is  not  proportioned  to  the  number  of  its  adherents 
but  to  the  reality  of  their  adherence  to  Christ  —  more 
properly,  the  value  of  the  Christian  assembly  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  fact  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  midst 
of  his  disciples,  and  a  value  such  as  this  is  not  to  be 
measured.  It  is  not  the  collective  wisdom  of  the  many 
that  insures  the  soundness  of  the  Church's  delibera- 
tions :  whether  they  be  few  or  many,  the  fact  of  their 
agreement,  the  truth  of  their  judgment,  the  value  of 
their  conduct  depend  upon  the  presence  of  Christ  in 
the  midst  of  them  and  upon  his  rule  over  them.  More- 
over, what  this  local  assembly  does,  it  does  for  the 
whole  Church:  —  that  is,  the  scope  of  its  action  is  not 
locally  limited,  it  is  ecumenical. 

In  the  particular  case  here  considered,  the  sinning 
brother  w^ho  refuses  to  hear  the  Church  is  excluded 
not  merely  from  the  local  society  but  from  the  Christian 
brotherhood,  —  he  is  accounted  "  as  the  Gentile  and  the 
publican."  But  this  is  not  all:  the  judgment  of  the 
Church  excludes  not  merely  from  an  earthly  society, 
but  from  heaven  itself.  Such  a  judgment  as  this  is 
only  possible  through  the  inspiration  of  Christ's  pres- 
ence. That  a  false  judgment  of  the  Church  can  be|' 
binding  in  heaven  is  not  to  be  thought  of !  It  needs 
to  be  remarked,  as  a  clue  to  the  interpretation  of  thi^ 
whole  passage,  that  our  Lord  proceeds  from  the  particu| 
lar  to  the  general,  from  the  concrete  to  the  ideal.     He 


120  THE  IDEA  OF  THE   CHURCH  [11 

is  speaking  of  the  concrete  misdemeanor,  and  he  first 
notices  the  judgment  of  the  Church  upon  it,  and  its 
temporal  penalty  in  exclusion  from  the  brotherhood. 
Then  he  affirms  that,  "  What  things  soever  ye  shall 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven :  and  what 
things  soever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed 
in  heaven."  Then,  speaking  more  generally  of  all  the 
boons  which  the  Church  requires,  he  says :  "  If  two 
of  you  shall  agree  on  earth  as  touching  anything  that 
they  shall  ask,  it  shall  be  done  for  them  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."  Finally,  he  explains  the  validity 
of  the  Church's  judgment  and  the  power  of  the  Church's 
prayers  by  his  own  presence  in  the  midst  of  his  true 
disciples :  "  For  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  to- 
gether in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them." 
The  power  of  binding  and  loosing  is  here  ascribed  to 
the  Church.  It  does  not  belong  to  the  individual  dis- 
ciples apart  from  the  Church,  but  neither  does  it  belong 
to  the  Church  as  a  corporate  entity  apart,  as  we  might 
say,  from  the  disciples.  In  John  20 :  22,  23  the  same 
power  —  here  more  plainly  described  as  the  forgiving 
and  retaining  of  sins  —  is  bestowed  upon  the  disciples 
as  such  —  whether  collectively  or  individually  it  is  not 
expressly  said.  However,  in  substantial  conformity 
with  the  passage  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  this  power 
is  here  conditioned  upon  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  is  invariably  represented  in  the  Scriptures 
as  a  personal  gift.  The  inspiration  of  the  Church  is 
primarily  the  inspiration  of  its  individual  members : 
the  Church  as  a  corporation  cannot  receive  nor  exercise 
any  spiritual  gift  —  or  charisma.  The  gifts  which  are 
bestowed  severally  upon  the  members  are  exercised  in 
and  for  the  body,  but  they  are  the  direct  and  personal 
expression  of  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  dis- 


§  S]  JESUS'  USE   OF   THE   WORD   CHURCH  121 

ciple,  not  an  exponent  of  the  corporate  inspiration  of 
the  Church. 

To  anticipate  what  must  be  discussed  further  on,  it 
may  be  remarked  here  that  the  nature  of  all  charis- 
matic endowments  is  most  clearly  exemplified  in  the 
prophetic  gift :  so  every  officer  of  the  Church,  like  the 
prophet,  exercises  the  particular  spiritual  gift  cor- 
responding to  his  office,  primarily  not  as  an  exponent 
of  the  Church,  but  as  an  exponent  of  God  —  always  for 
the  edification  of  the  Church,  indeed,  but  always  in 
God's  name.  Hence  the  high  character  of  ecclesiastical 
authority.  It  must  not  be  forgotten,  however,  thatj 
though  spiritual  gifts  are  the  personal  endowment  of 
individual  disciples  they  belong  to  them  only  as  mem-l 
hers  of  the  body. 

The  personal  character  of  this  gift  of  binding  and 
loosing  is  clearly  expressed  in  Matt.  16  :  19,  where  it 
is  bestowed  upon  Peter:  "I  will  give  unto  thee  the 
keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven;  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven."  It  is  Simon  the  disciple  that  personally  re- 
ceives this  power ;  but  it  is  given  to  him,  of  course,  only 
in  response  to  his  personal  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
and  even  here  it  is  brought  expressly  into  relation  with 
the  Church  —  z;.  18.  To  form  a  concrete  idea  of  the 
particular  case  of  discipline  which  Jesus  contemplates 
in  Matt.  18  :  15-17,  we  have  to  suppose  that  the  power 
of  binding  and  loosing  is  exercised  in  the  first  instance 
by  one,  who  is  inspired  to  formulate  a  judgment  upon 
the  questions  at  issue  ;  the  part  which  the  others  take  in 
the  transaction  is  expressed  by  their  consent  (what  we 
have  here  is  a  particular  case  of  the  trying  of  spirits), 
and  so  the  judgment  becomes  an  act  of  the  Church. 


122  THE   IDEA  OF   THE   CHURCH  [H 

"We  have  not  yet  exhausted  the  significance  of  Jesus' 
first  mention  of  his  Church  (Matt.  16  :  13-20).  The 
moment  was  evidently  a  critical  one  in  Jesus'  ministry. 
He  had  taken  the  disciples  apart  —  probably  the  Twelve 
alone  are  here  meant  —  into  the  region  of  Caesarea 
Philippi,  at  a  distance  from  the  ordinary  field  of  his 
labor.  There  he  required  of  them  an  explicit  confes- 
sion of  their  faith  in  him,  as  distinguished  from  the 
opinions  which  were  current  among  the  people.  It 
was  Simon  that  answered :  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God."  He  probably  expressed  the 
implicit  faith  of  the  rest ;  but  it  had  now  become  of 
importance,  in  view  of  the  approaching  persecution  and 
rejection  of  Jesus,  that  this  faith  be  explicitly  appre- 
hended by  the  disciples.  At  all  events  it  was  Simon 
Peter  that  first  gave  utterance  to  it,  and  it  is  evident 
that  Jesus  regarded  this  as  a  fact  of  the  utmost  moment. 
He  welcomed  it  as  a  revelation  of  God  to  his  disciple, 
and  said  to  him,  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar- Jonah, 
.  .  .  And  I  also  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter, 
and  upon  this  rock  (j^etra)  I  will  build  my  Church." 
As  the  following  verse  clearly  bestows  upon  Peter  per- 
sonally the  "  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  heaven,"  we  must 
take  it  that  he  too  is  the  rock  upon  which  the  Church 
is  to  be  built,  —  and  not  interpret  it  of  the  faith  which 
he  professed,  as  many  Protestant  theologians  have,  for 
apologetic  reasons,  felt  constrained  to  do. 

Jesus,  and  his  apostles  after  him,  conceived  quite 
concretely  of  the  building  of  his  Church :  it  was 
neither  to  be  founded  upon  nor  composed  of  an  in- 
visible abstraction  like  faith,  but  composed  of  the  faith- 
ful disciples  themselves.  Truth  is  not  the  foundation 
of  the  Church :  on  the  contrary,  the  Church  is  the 
foundation   and   substantial   support   of    the   truth    (1 


§  9]         THE  APOSTOLIC  NOTION   OF  THE   CHURCH  123 

Tim.  3  :  15),  The  notion  is  no  less  concrete  when  the 
figure  is  varied  and  Jesus  Christ  is  regarded  as  the  sole 
foundation,  as  in  1  Cor.  3  :  11.  Both  notions  are  com- 
bined in  Ephes.  2 :  19-22 :  "  being  built  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone  ;  ...  in  whom 
ye  also  are  builded  together."  It  is  also  pertinent  to 
adduce  here  1  Pet.  2:5:  "ye  also,  as  living  stones,  are 
built  up  a  spiritual  house."  Peter,  by  the  confession  of 
that  faith  which  was  essential  to  the  building  of  the 
Church,  became  actually  the  first  stone  —  indeed  a 
foundation  rock  —  of  that  edifice.  To  him,  while  he 
was  as  yet  the  only  one  who  expressly  recognized  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah,  was  given  the  power  which  belongs  to 
the  Church.  To  this,  and  to  the  like  promptness  of 
spirit  which  he  elsewhere  displayed,  was  due  the  primacy 
among  the  apostles  which  Peter  actually  enjoyed.  But 
that  this  power  was  bestowed  upon  him  in  his  official 
capacity  as  apostle  (or  as  chief  of  the  apostles),  there  is 
no  hint,  —  still  less  that  it  was  an  official  prerogative 
which  was  meant  to  descend  to  an  individual  successor 
of  Peter  in  the  primacy  of  the  Church  (according  to  the 
Roman  view),  or  to  the  bishops  as  representatives  in 
solidum  of  the  episcopate  of  Peter  (according  to  the 
doctrine  of  Cyprian).  On  the  contrary,  we  see  from 
John  20  :  22,  23  and  Matt.  18  :  17-20  that  this  power 
is  given  to  the  disciples  as  such  and  to  the  Church  as  a 
whole :  —  to  every  one  that  confesses  a  like  faith  with 
Peter,  and,  as  a  living  stone,  is  built  into  the  same 
edifice. 

§  9,   THE   APOSTOLIC   NOTION  OF   THE   CHURCH 

In    announcing   the   building   of   his   Church,  Jesus 
posited  a  closer  bond  of  union  between  himself  and  his 


124  THE  IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

followers,  and  a  closer  mutual  attachment  amongst 
them  as  a  body,  than  was  expressed  by  the  relation  of  a 
teacher  to  his  disciples.  We  can  see  in  the  Gospels  that 
the  idea  of  discipleship  progressed  from  stage  to  stage, 
keeping  pace  with  an  ever  profounder  apprehension  of 
the  character  of  Jesus  and  of  the  nature  of  his  disciples' 
relation  to  him.  In  the  end,  the  idea  of  discipleship 
was  found  inadequate  to  express  this  relationship  in  its 
fulness.  Jesus  had  awakened  in  his  disciples  the  con- 
fidence that  they  were  not  merely  on  the  way  to  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  but  were  actually  possessed  of  it ;  and 
the  fellowship  which  was  thus  formed  was  no  longer 
comparable  to  that  of  the  Jewish  rabbinical  schools. 
Jesus  was  more  than  a  rahhi,  and  the  fellowship  of  his 
disciples  was  more  than  a  school.  The  very  fact  of  his 
departure  from  them  made  it  impossible  to  maintain 
the  earlier  conception  of  discipleship.-'     By  the  faith  in 

1  A  purely  secular  development  of  the  school  of  Jesus  was  conceivable. 
To  spread  and  perpetuate  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  the  special  mission 
of  his  Apostles,  the  Twelve  whom  he  himself  had  chosen  and  instructed. 
The  greater  company  which  they  in  turn  gathered  about  them  after  Pen- 
tecost is  characterized  in  Acts  2 :  42  as  "  continuing  steadfastly  in  the 
Apostles'  teaching."  It  seems  as  though  but  little  more  was  wanted  to 
characterize  the  Apostles  as  rabbis  —  or  "masters"  —  and  the  followers 
of  Jesus  as  their  disciples.  But  against  such  a  development  of  his  school, 
against  the  arrogation  of  such  authority  on  the  part  of  the  Apostles,  there 
stood  the  explicit  command  of  the  "  one  master,"  Christ.  A  distinct  recol- 
lection was  preserved  of  an  important  admonition  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples 
(Matt.  23  :  8),  "But  be  not  ye  called  Rabbi,  for  o?ie  is  your  teacher,  and 
all  ye  are  brethren."  This  logion  preserved  equality  among  the  brethren 
and  confirmed  their  direct  relation  to  Jesus  as  Master  and  Lord.  The 
name  "  disciple  "  (fiaOrjTrjs)  continued  to  be  used  after  the  Ascension  as 
it  was  before  to  characterize  as  his  personal  scholars  all  who  belonged 
to  the  school  of  Jesus.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  school  of  Jesus  was  con- 
tinued by  his  Apostles,  and  so  long  as  many  remained  who  could  recount 
their  personal  recollections  of  the  Lord  the  sense  of  discipleship  must 
have  been  more  vivid  than  was  afterwards  the  case.  At  all  events,  it 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  Christian  community  should  be  re- 
garded from  ivithout  as  a  alpfais  (Acts  24  :  5,  14),  a  sect  or  party  among 


§  9]         THE  APOSTOLIC   NOTION   OF  THE   CHURCH  125 

his  Resurrection  and  Ascension  the  school  of  Jesus  was 
transformed  into  a  religion ;  for  the  disciples  were  as- 
sured that  with  Jesus'  departure  into  the  heavenly 
sphere  their  intercourse  with  him  was  not  broken  off, 
but  continued  after  a  spiritual  manner  —  in  the  same 
manner,  that  is,  in  which  men  may  hold  intercourse 
with  God.  Little  as  the  disciples  thought  of  separating 
from  the  religion  of  Israel,  there  were  some  elements 
even  in  their  earliest  cult  which  distinguished  them 
from  others  of  their  nation,  and  could  not  fail  in  the 
end  to  divide  them.  This  religious  distinction  was  the  X 
ynost  essential  tnark  of  Jesus'  disciples,  and  we  learn 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (9  :  14,  21 ;  22  :  16)  that 
they  were  known  and  designated  as  "  those  that  call 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  "  (or  "  of  Jesus  "). 

It  is  evident  that  a  new  name  was  needed  to  describe 
the  disciples  in  terms  of  the  new  (religious)  relation 
which  was  established  with  Jesus,  and  of  the  closer  fel- 
lowship which  was  realized  amongst  themselves.  Never- 
theless the  idea  of  discipleship,  though  inadequate,  was 
true  so  far  as  it  went ;  and  it  was  only  gradually  that 
the  name  ceased  to  be  used  to  designate  the  Christian 
community  and  the  individuals  which  composed  it.  It 
was  not  used,  however,  by  St.  Paul,  nor  in  any  of  the 
Epistles,  and  our  only  evidence  for  its  continued  use  is 
the  Acts,  where  it  is  still  the  most  frequent  name  among 
several  which  are  there  concurrently  employed.^ 

the  Jews  which  cultivated  particular  tenets,  after  the  analogy  of  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  It  was,  however,  only  outside  their  community 
that  the  disciples  were  called  Christians  (Xptcrrtai/ot)  —  Acts  11:26; 
26  :  28;  1  Pet.  4  :  16.     Cf.  Weizsacker,  Apost.  Zeitalter,  pp.  35  sqq. 

2  It  is  likewise  only  in  the  Acts  that  we  learn  of  an  interesting  word 
which  was  used  to  describe  Christianity  in  general,  namely  "  the  Way  of 
God,"  or  simply  "the  Way"  (^  6S(5j:)  —  Acts  9:2;  19:9,23;  22:4;. 
24 :  14,  22. 


X 


126  THE  IDEA   OF  THE   CHURCH  [II 

The  words  which  gradually  superseded  the  name 
"  disciples,"  expressed  more  profoundly  the  nature  of 

/  the  Christian  community.  The  community  itself,  and 
the  several  members  of  it  regarded  in  their  relations  of 
mutual  love  and  duty,  were  called  "  brethren."  The 
use  of  this  name,  which  is  barely  hinted  at  in  the  Gos- 
pels (Matt.  23  :  8),  became  at  once  universal  in  the 
apostolic  Church;  it  was  as  much  a  characteristic  of 
the  Gentile  as  of  the  Jewish  churches,  of  Paul's  epistles 
as  of  the  epistles  of  James  and  John.  The  name  breth- 
ren had  not  only  a  social  but  a  religious  implication : 
primarily  the  disciples  of  Jesus  were  brethren  because 
they  were  alike  "  sons  of  the  Kingdom "  or  "  sons  of 
God."  The  religious  relation,  however,  was  more  purely 
expressed  in  the  name  "  the  saints  "  —  ol  ayioi  —  which 
was,  so  to  speak,  the  liturgical  name,  characterizing  the 
community  as  the  congregation  of  God's  people,  and  the 
members  severally  as  co-religionists. 

From  either  point  of  view  —  as  brethren  or  as  the 
saints  —  the  disciples  constituted  something  more  than 
a  school.     Acts  2  :  42  summarizes  the  characteristics  of 

V  the  new  community  in  four  points  :  "  They  continued 
steadfastly  in  the  apostles'  teaching  and  the  fellowship 
(KOLvajvLa),  in  the  breaking  of  bread  and  the  prayers." 
That  is  to  say,  they  had  in  common  not  only  the  apos- 
tolic teaching,  consisting  in  reminiscences  of  Jesus  and 
testimony  to  the  fact  that  in  fulfilment  of  prophecy  he 
had  been  put  to  death  and  by  the  right  hand  of  God 
raised  up  and  exalted  to  be  both  Lord  and  Christ ;  but 
also  certain  peculiar  religious  practices,  namely,  the  rite 
which  the  Lord  had  instituted  in  memorial  of  his  death, 
and  "  the  prayers  "  which  were  addressed  to  him  or  uttered 
in  his  name.  Between  these  two  terms,  which  denote 
more  especially  the  doctrinal  and  religious  aspect  of  the 


§  9]         THE  APOSTOLIC   NOTION   OF   THE   CHURCH  127 

Church,  there  is  mentioned  another  word  —  Kotvuivia  — 
which  signifies  community  and  fellowship  in  general  — 
in  this  context  probably  with  express  reference  to  the 
concrete  acts  of  helpfulness  in  whicii  the  mutual  love  of 
the  brethren  was  manifested  (cf.  vx>.  4:4:,  45),  and  conse- 
quently to  the  moral  bond  which  united  them.  But 
this  word  expresses  a  notion  which  is  highly  character- 
istic of  Christianity,  and  its  meaning  is  never  exhausted 
by  a  reference  to  the  mere  act  of  helpfulness.  Even 
where  the  reference  is  most  expressly  to  a  concrete  act 
of  benevolence,  the  underlying  moral  notion  of  fellowship 
is  never  absent. 

In  the  New  Testament  Kotvcovla  is  used  almost  as  a 
technical  term,  though  the  significance  of  it  is  lost  to 
us  through  the  failure  of  our  English  versions  to  render 
it  uniformly  by  the  same  word.  The  most  literal  ren- 
dering would  be  communion  or  communication.  It  is 
very  badly  rendered  in  one  of  the  familiar  offertory 
sentences  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  by  the  word 
"  distribute  "  —  much  better  in  the  Authorized  Version, 
''  To  do  good  and  to  communicate  forget  not "  (Heb. 
13:16).  The  same  bad  rendering  ("distribution")  is 
given  by  the  Authorized  Version  in  2  Cor.  9  :  13 
(R,  V.  "contribution"),  notwithstanding  that  in  the 
preceding  chapter  {v.  4)  the  word  is  rightly  translated 
"fellowship,"  —  in  Rom.  15:26  both  versions  have 
"  contribution."  This  latter  rendering,  though  it  is 
much  to  be  preferred  to  "  distribution,"  ignores  the 
essential  character  of  the  act  which  it  describes.  Alms- 
giving, indeed,  which  was  a  mere  distribution,  was  culti- 
vated as  a  pious  practice  by  the  Christians  no  less  than 
by  the  Jews.  We  have  sufficient  evidence  of  this  in  the 
Acts,  and  chiefly  with  reference  to  beggars.  But  the 
Christian  consciousness  observed  a  distinction  between 


128  THE  IDEA   OF   THE    CHURCH  [H 

the  works  of  charity  which  were  performed  towards 
men  in  general,  and  the  "  communion "  in  worldly 
goods  with  fellow-members  of  the  household  of  faith 
(Gal.  6  :  10).  The  latter  was  not  properly  a  part  of 
almsgiving  but  the  natural  and  necessary  expression  of 
Christian  fellowship. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  actual  economic  situa- 
tion in  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  in  the  early  days,  as 
/    depicted  in  Acts  2  :  44,  45,  it  is  evident  that  the  having 
'^  "  all  things  in  common  "  was  regarded  by  the  author  of 

this  book  as  the  proper  fulfilment  of  the  ideal  of  the 
Christian  community.  St.  Paul  cherished  the  same 
ideal,  the  ideal  of  "  equality "  among  the  brethren  (2 
Cor.  8  :  13-15),  and  without  advocating  any  Utopian 
scheme  for  the  uniform  redistribution  of  wealth,  he 
makes  this  the  ground  of  his  appeal  for  a  collection 
in  behalf  of  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem.  From  this 
point  of  view  the  "  alms  "  which  St.  Paul  carried  to  the 
Church  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  24  :  17)  was  not  a  mere  dis- 
tribution or  contribution  from  the  Gentile  Churches,  but 
it  was  —  as  it  is  characteristically  called  —  a  ''  fellow- 
ship" (2  Cor.  8:4;  9:13).  St.  Paul's  language,  es- 
pecially in  2  Cor.  9  :  12-15,  invests  this  act  with  a 
liturgical  character.  This  context,  among  other  proofs, 
assures  us  that  he  regarded  the  gift  not  only  as  a  pledge 
of  the  sincerity  of  fellowship,  but  as  an  important  prac- 
tical means  for  confirming  the  same.^ 

3  Besides  this  consideration,  St.  Paul  in  Rom.  15 :  27  calls  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  Gentiles  were  debtors  to  their  Jewish  brethren : 
"  For  if  the  Gentiles  have  been  made  partakers  (fKoivamjcrav)  of  their 
spiritual  things,  they  owe  it  to  them  also  to  minister  (Xetroupyjyo-ai)  unto 
them  in  carnal  things."  The  same  characteristic  use  which  we  have 
noted  in  the  case  of  Koiviovia  is  to  be  observed  in  some  of  its  cognates : 
Koivcovfca  in  Rom.  12:  13;  Gal.  6  :  6  and  Phil.  4: 15;  koivcovikos  in  1  Tim. 
6:16;  and  koivcovos  in  1  Cor.  10 :  18,  20. 


§  9]  THE  APOSTOLIC   NOTION   OF   THE   CHURCH  129 

If  KoivoiVLa  were  used  only  to  denote  the  practical 
exhibitions  of  the  spirit  of  Christian  fellowship  it  would 
be  dep^^ived  of  much  of  its  significance.  In  fact  its 
proper  and  more  frequent  sense  is  that  of  fellowship  in 
general,  or  more  particularly  in  the  deep  things  of  Chris- 
tian experience  and  faith.  When  it  is  said  in  Gal.  2  :  9 
that  the  Apostles  of  the  Jews  gave  to  the  Apostles  of 
the  Gentiles  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  nothing  else 
can  be  meant  than  the  recognition  that  they  were 
partakers  in  common  of  the  same  faith.  St.  Paul 
speaks  again  of  fellowship  in  the  faith  in  Ephes.  3:9; 
Phil.  1:5;  and  Philem.  6.  In  a  still  deeper  sense  he 
speaks  of  fellowship  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ  (Phil. 
3  :  10),  and  of  the  fellowship  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (2  Cor. 
13  :  14 ;  Phil.  2  :  1,  —  in  the  latter  place  it  has  also  a 
social  significance).  St.  John  uses  the  word  only  in  the 
general  sense  of  fellowshijD  with  God  (or  Christ)  and 
with  one  another  (1  John  1  :  3,  6,  7).  In  the  last  of 
these  verses  St.  John  implies  that  fellowship  with  the 
brotherhood  is  a  condition  of  fellowship  with  God  in 
Christ.  But  it  is  likewise  true  that  fellowship  with 
God  (or  Christ)  is  the  deepest  bond  which  unites  the 
brotherhood.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  the  sacrament  of 
this  double  fellowship :  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we 
bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  [KOLvojvia)  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  ?  The  loaf  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  commun- 
ion of  the  body  of  Christ?  seeing  that  we,  who  are 
many,  are  one  loaf,  one  body :  for  we  all  partake  of 
the  one  loaf." 

All  of  the  notions  which  we  have  been  considering 
in  this  section  —  those,  namely,   which  are  expressed 
by  the  names  "  disciples,"  "  brethren,"  and  "  saints  "  and     ^i/ 
by  the  word  "  fellowship  "  —  must  be  reckoned  as  constit- 
uents of  the  apostolic  idea  of  the  Church.     In  all  this 

9 


J  'I- 


130  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [II 

there  is  nothing  which  is  not  in  perfect  harmony  with 
that  notion  of  the  Church  —  the  assembly  of  God's  peo- 
ple —  which  we  considered  in  the  preceding  section  and 
have  reason  to  attribute  to  Jesus.  In  particular,  there 
I J  is  nothing  which  suggests  any  emphasis  upon  formal 
organization:  on  the  contrary,  the  whole  nature  of  the 
Church  consists  in  the  religious  bond  which  unites  the 
disciples  to  Christ,  who  is  ever  present  in  the  midst  of 
them ;  in  the  consequent  holiness  of  the  assembly  and 
its  members;  and  in  the  spirit  of  brotherhood  which 
expresses  itself  in  appropriate  acts  of  fellowship.  Some 
organization  of  course  there  must  be.  But  the  actual 
'  form  which  the  organization  of  the  Christian  community 

shall  take  is  left  undetermined  by  these  considerations. 
Surely  it  is  impossible  that  any  2^cu'iicidar  form  of  organ- 
ization, or  any  formal  law,  can  ever  rightly  be  accounted 
essential  to  the  Church !  In  the  following  section,  where 
the  character  of  Church  organization  is  considered,  we 

I  shall  see  that  legal  exaction  of  any  sort  is  incompatible 

Lwith  the  very  nature  of  the  Church. 

But  one  question  may  here  be  raised  about  the  form 
of  organization,  since  it  is  connected  with  our  present 
consideration  of  the  names  which  were  used  to  describe 
the  Christian  community  in  the  earliest  age.  It  is  a 
popular  conception  that  the  early  Christian  societies  in 
Palestine  and  among  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion  were 
organized  on  the  mode]  of  the  Synagogue  —  practically, 
as  new  synagogues  side  by  side  with  the  old.  But  the 
local  Jewish  community  ordinarily  found  expression  for 
the  unity  of  its  religious  life  in  a  single  synagogue,  and 
to  set  up  another  organization  of  the  same  sort  could 
only  be  regarded  as  separation  and  apostasy.  The 
whole  relation  of  the  earliest  Christians  to  the  Jewish 
national  and  religious  society  forbids  such  a  supposition. 


§  9]  THE   APOSTOLIC   NOTION    OF   THE   CHURCH  131 

The  Christians  entertained  no  thought  of  separation;  /  / 
they  desired  to  remain  in  the  bonds  of  Jewish  nation-: 
ahty  and  under  the  authority  of  the  Jewish  magis- 
trates; they  were  so  scrupulous  to  observe  the  law, 
that  when  they  were  summoned  before  the  supreme 
court  —  the  Sanhedrin  —  there  was  no  crime  that  could 
be  alleged  against  them  nor  any  pretext  found  for  defin- 
itive punishment;  —  it  was  necessary  to  let  them  go 
with  only  such  exemplary  threat  or  castigation  as  is 
mentioned  in  Acts  4  :  21  and  5  :  40.  It  was  possible  for 
the  Christians  to  maintain  such  a  position  in  Jewish 
society  because  Judaism  allowed  not  only  considerable 
latitude  of  opinion  and  the  formation  of  separate 
doctrinal  schools,  but  even  associations  for  the  prac- 
tice of  a  separate  religious  cult,  as  is  proved  by  the 
example  of  the  Essenes.  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the 
modern  Jewish  conception  of  orthodoxy  as  a  condi- 
tion of  communion  was  borrowed  from  the  Christian 
Church. 

The  notion  of  separate  synagogues  for  the  Christians  «jj*-  ^  ps^*^' 
cannot  be  entertained  —  except  perhaps  at  Jerusalem. 
Acts  6  :  9  speaks  of  "  the  synagogue  so  called  of  the 
Libertines  [that  is,  Roman  Jews] ,  and  of  the  Cyrenians, 
and  of  the  Alexandrians,  and  of  them  of  Cilicia  and 
Asia."  It  is  not  perfectly  clear  whether  one  synagogue 
is  referred  to  or  many,  though  the  more  probable  mean- 
ing is  that  there  were  a  number  of  independent  meeting- 
places  to  which  the  Jews  from  the  several  countries 
here  mentioned  were  wont  to  resort.  One  might  fancy 
that  the  Christians,  as  a  society  of  Galileans  (Acts  1 : 
11 ;  2:7),  constituted  a  separate  synagogue  of  this  sort. 
But  the  name  does  not  occur  in  a  sense  appropriate  to 
this  theory:  on  the  contrary,  from  Acts  11 :  26,  we 
have  rather  to  suppose  that  the  Christians  were  called 


132  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [II 

Nazarenes,  a  name  which  denoted  the  origin  of   the 
founder,  not  of  the  society.* 

In  this  connection  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the 
v/  name  synagogue  is  never  applied  to  the  Christian  as- 
sembly —  except  in  James  2:2.  We  have  seen  in  the 
preceding  section  what  reasons  there  were  for  preferring 
iKKK-qcria  to  crvvayoiyrj  as  the  name  of  the  Christian 
society,  even  if  the  Old  Testament  use  of  the  two  words 
were  alone  to  be  considered.  It  was,  however,  the  con- 
teiiwporary  Jewish  use  of  the  word  synagogue,  to  describe 
the  several  legally  organized  local  societies  —  and  not 
the  congregation  of  Israel  as  a  lohole,  which  rendered  it 
peculiarly  unapt  as  a  name  for  that  society  which  felt 
itself  to  be  the  assembly  of  the  people  of  God.  The 
Christians  probably  lacked  the  right  to  organize  them- 
selves as  a  particular  synagogue  under  the  Jewish  law, 
and  at  all  events  such  an  organization  was  hardly  in 
keeping  with  the  nature  of  their  society.  The  Syna- 
gogue in  its  religious  as  well  as  its  social  aspect  was 
inadequate  as  an  expression  of  the  Christian  ideal, 
and  the  local  and  particular  character  of  its  organiza- 
tion was  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  the  Church 
of  God. 

If  the  early  Jewish  Christians  did  not  organize  them- 
selves after  the  model  of  the  Synagogue,  the  Gentile 
converts  would  surely  be  less  inclined  to  do  so,  — 
though  the  separation  of  Jews  and  Christians  which 
came  about  as  a  consequence  of  the  mission  to  the  Gen- 
tiles undoubtedly  gave  opportunity  for  the  formation  of 
Christian  synagogues  outside  the  Jewish  communion. 
There  can  of  course  be  no  doubt  that  the  Christian 
society  was  organized,  —  at  first  within  the  national 
and  religious  community  of  Israel,  and  afterwards  in- 

*  See  Weizsiicker,  Apost.  Zeitalter,  pp.  38  sq. 


i 


§  9]         THE   APOSTOLIC   XOTION   OF   THE   CHURCH  133 

dependent  of  it.     The  question  is  merely,  What  was  the 
character  of  that  organization  ?    The  fact  that  the  name 
synagogue  —  which  might  readily  have  been  so  qualified 
as  to  render  its  Christian  application  unambiguous  — 
was  not  used  even  to  designate  the  local  community  of 
Christians,  goes  to  prove  that  the  Church  and  the  Syna-        V 
o'ocrue  were  incommensurable  entities,  and  that  even  in   ^ 
their  formal  aspects  (in  point  of  organization)  they  were    ^■ 
not  enough  alike  to  suggest  comparison.^ 

Jesus  himself  significantly  called  the  Church  he  was 
to  build  "771?/  Church."  It  is  no  less  significant  that 
throag:hout  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  it  is  not  ex- 
pressly  called  liis  Church.^  For  the  most  part  the  word 
Church  (or  Churches)  is  used  absolutely,  as  the  nomen 
jyroprium  of  the  Christian  society,  either  with  or  with- 
out a  local  designation.  But  the  full  and  solemn  title 
was  "  the  Church  of  God."  ^     For  all  this,  however,  it 

5  Schiirer,  Jewish  People,  div.  II.  vol.  11.  p.  59,  note. 

^  Except  in  Rom.  16:16,  "All  the  Churches  of  Christ  salute  you." 
On  this  difficult  passage  see  Hort,  The  Christian  Ecclesia,  pp.  110  sq. 
He  takes  it  to  mean  the  Churches  of  Judea,  as  those  which  had  the 
most  immediate  historical  relations  with  the  Messiah.  It  is  to  be  com- 
pared with  Gal.  1 :  22,  "  and  I  continued  unknown  to  the  Churches  in 
Judea  that  are  in  Christ,"  and  1  Thes.  2:  14,  "became  imitators  of  the 
Churches  of  God  which  are  in  Judea  in  Christ  Jesus." 

''  "With  the  exception,  however,  of  two  places  in  1  Tim.  (iii:  5,  15), 
where  the  old  name  is  used  with  a  special  force  derived  from  the  context, 
this  name  is  confined  to  St.  Paul's  earlier  epistles,  the  two  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  and  Galatians.  It  is  very  striking 
that  at  this  time,  when  his  antagonism  to  the  Judaizers  was  at  its  hottest, 
he  never  for  a  moment  set  a  new  Ecclesia  against  the  old,  an  Ecclesia  of 
Jesus  or  even  an  Ecclesia  of  the  Christ  against  the  Ecclesia  of  God,  but 
implicitly  taught  his  heathen  converts  to  believe  that  the  body  into 
which  they  were  baptized  was  itself  the  Ecclesia  of  God."  Hort,  op.  cit., 
p.  108.  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  this  usage  was  a  peculiarity  of 
St.  Paul's.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  name 
"  the  Church  of  God  "  was  more  common  among  the  Jewish  than  among 
the  Gentile  Christians.  The  use  of  the  name  Church  in  Matt.  16:18; 
18: 17;   and  in  the  Apocalypse  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  it  was  not  a 


134  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [H 

was  of  course  regarded  no  whit  less  as  the  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  it  would  be  superfluous  here  to  col- 
lect proof  of  the  apostolic  belief  that  it  is  his  building, 
his  body,  constituted  in  its  very  essence  by  his  presence 
in  the  midst  of  it.  It  is  more  pertinent  to  remark  that 
the  relation  of  the  Church  to  Christ  is  occasionally  ex- 
pressed in  the  very  name  (see  note  6),  and  more  fre- 
quently in  characteristic  descriptions  of.  the  Church 
which  St.  Paul  gives  in  the  address  of  a  number  of  his 
epistles.  The  Church  of  the  Thessalonians  is  in  both 
epistles  said  to  be  "  in  God  the  (or  our)  Father  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  In  1  Cor.  1:2  '•  the  Church  of 
God  which  is  at  Corinth  "  is  further  described  as  "  Them* 
that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus."  St.  Paul  addresses 
his  epistle  to  the  Philippians  "  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ 
Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi."  He  calls  the  men  of 
Ephesus  "  saints  and  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus,"  and  the 
men  of  Colossae  "  saints  and  faithful  brethren  in  Christ." 
No  name  that  might  be  used  for  the  Church  could  make 
clearer  the  fact  that  it  is  in  reality  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ.  When  Jesus  first  spoke  of  it  as  Ms  Church  it 
was  highly  important  to  affirm  explicitly  this  relation- 
ship. In  that  moment  no  one  could  entertain  a  suspi- 
cion that  the  school  of  Jesus'  disciples  might  be  separated 
from  the  covenant  of  God's  people  Israel.  The  name 
Ecclesia  itself  sufficed  to  link  the  new  society  to  the 
past,  the  newness  of  this  creation  was  expressed  in  the 
fact  that  it  was  his  Ecclesia,  the  building  of  the  Messiah. 
But  the  time  came  when  the  disciples  of  Christ  were 
actually  sundered  from  the  Jews ;  there  was  danger 
then  that  the  ideal  relationship  of  the  Christian  Ecclesia 

name  invented  by  St.  Paul,  but  one  which  he  adopted  from  cuirent  usage. 
The  name  Chm-ch  of  God  is  simply  the  fuller  expression  for  what  is 
implied  in  the  name  Chm'ch  itself. 


§9]         THE   APOSTOLIC   NOTION  OF  THE  CHURCH  135 

to  the  Ecclesia  of  old  might  be  ignored :  hence  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  name  "  the  Ecclesia  of  God." 

In  the  Greek  republic  there  was  as  a  matter  of  course 
but  one  Ecclesia,  the  popular  assembly  of  all  citizens. 
According  to  the  language  of  the  Septuagint  there  was 
again,  and  equally  as  a  matter  of  course,  but  one  Ecclesia, 
the  popular  assembly  of  Israel.  According  also  to  ^ 
the  Christian  use  of  the  word  we  may  expect  to  find 
that  but  one  Ecclesia  is  conceivable,  the  assembly  of 
all  Christendom  —  the  new  people  of  God,  the  new 
Israel.^ 

At   first  sight  the  language  of  the  New  Testament 

■  seems  to  contradict  this  notion  of  the  Church.  In 
nearly  all  the  passages  in  which  the  word  Ecclesia  here 
occurs  it  signifies  —  so  it  appears  —  local  assemblies,  X 
not  the  whole  of  Christendom.^  There  is  an  Ecclesia  in 
Corinth  (1  Cor.  1  :  2),  another  in  Cenchrea  (Rom.  16  :  1), 
a  third  in  Thessalonica  (1  Thes.  1  :  1),  etc.     Hence  the 

•  frequent  use  of  the  plural.-^°     There  is  not  one  Church, 
but  there  are  many,  innumerable  Ecclesiae  of  Christians, 

8  The  remainder  of  this  section  and  the  whole  of  the  following  is 
taken  from  Sohm,  pp.  18  sqq.  They  express  the  most  fundamental 
thesis  of  his  work,  and  for  this  reason  I  prefer  to  state  the  case  in  his 
own  words. 

9  Still,  the  word  Ecclesia  is  obviously  used  several  times  in  the  New 
Testament  for  the  whole  of  Christendom.  Especially  in  our  Lord's  say- 
ing in  Matt.  16  :  18,  "upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  Church."  Like- 
wise 1  Cor.  12  :  28,  "  God  hath  set  some  in  the  Church,  first  apostles, 
secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,"  etc.  In  1  Cor.  15  :  9  and  Gal.  1  :  13 
St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  time  when  he  "persecuted  the  Church  of  God," 
—  cf .  Phil.  3:6.  In  1  Cor.  10  :  32  the  Corinthians  are  exhorted  to 
"  give  no  occasion  of  stumbling,  either  to  Jews,  or  to  Greeks,  or  to  the 
Church  of  God."  In  Ephes.  1  :  22,  23  and  Col.  1  :  24,  25  the  Church  is 
represented  as  the  body  of  Christ.  Throughout  the  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  the  name  is  frequently  used  absolutely  and  in  the  general 
sense  which  denotes  the  whole  people  of  God. 

10  So  for  example  in  1  Thes.  2  :  14 ;  Rom.  16  :  14,  16 ;  1  Cor.  7  :  17; 
11  :  16 ;  in  2  Cor.  in  every  case  except  the  address  (1  :  1) ;  Rev.  2  :  7,  etc. 


p 


136  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [H 

in  the  wide  extent  of  the  Roman  Empire.  It  is  the 
local  congregation,  so  it  seems,  that  is  called  Ecclesia, 
not  the  Church  universal.  Upon  the  observation  of 
this  fact  is  leased  the  prevailing  view  that  for  early 
Christian  organization  the  notion  of  the  local  congrega- 
tion (a  legal  notion)  was  fundamental,  not  the  notion 
of  the  Church  (a  spiritual  notion). 

But  this  is  not  all:  the  name  Ecclesia  was  applied 
not  only  to  the  whole  company  of  Christians  in  one 
place,  but  to  the  mere  household  assembly  as  well  — 
the  Christians  that  were  wont  to  gather  in  a  particular 
house.^^ 

It  is  this  last  fact,  however,  wdiich  points  us  to  the  cor- 
rect solution.  It  shows  clearly  that  the  word  Ecclesia 
expresses  no  definite  empirical  magnitude,  no  particular 
social  organization  —  not  even  that  of  the  local  com- 
munity, but  simply  a  dogmatic  value-judgment  ((%- 
matisches  We?'turteil).  The  name  Ecclesia  is  applied  to 
every  assembly  which  dogmatically  —  according  to  its 
spiritual  value  as  it  is  apprehended  by  faith  —  consti- 
tutes an  assembly  of  Christendom,  an  assembly  of  the 
people  of  the  New  Covenant  before  and  with  God  (or 
Christ).  This  conception  of  the  Church  is  founded  upon 
our  Lord's  word  (Matt.  18  :  20),  "  Where  two  or  three 
are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the 
midst  of  them."  Where  the  Lord  is,  the  head  of  the 
body,  there  is  Christendom  :  where  two  or  three  are  gath- 
ered in  Christ's  name,  there  is  the  -people  of  Christ,  the 
New  Testament  Israel ;  tbere  is  the  whole  of  Christendom 
with  all  its  promised  privileges ;  for  Christ  is  in  the 
midst,  and  that  is  all  in  all.  Where  Christ  is,  there  is 
the  Ecclesia  —  the  people  of  God.     Hence  the  saying 

11  Rom.  16  :  5;  1  Cor.  16  :  19;  Philem.  2;  Col.  4  :  15;  — cf.  Rom. 
16  :  14,  15. 


y 


§  9]         THE   APOSTOLIC   NOTION   OF   THE   CHURCH  137 

which  early  became  proverbial :  uhi  tres  ibi  ecclesia}'^ 
Christian  faith  sees  in  every  company  of  Christians 
assembled  in  the  Spirit,  all  Christendom,  the  whole  v/ 
Church.  Hence  it  is  that  every  assembly  of  Christians, 
whether  it  be  great  or  small,  which  is  gathered  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  is  called  Ecclesia,  the  popular  assem- 
bly of  the  New  Testament  Israel.  The  Church  is  an 
idea  which  cannot  be  subjected  to  quantitative  meas- 
urement, neither  can  any  partitive  terms  be  applied  to 
it.  The  tvhole  Church  is  not  composed  of  individual 
Churches,  neither  is  the  individual  Church  regarded  as 
apart  of  the  whole.  The  Church  is  ever  a  whole  and  v- v/ 
it  has  no  separable  parts.  There  is  but  one  Ecclesia,  S 
the  assembly  of  the  whole  of  Christendom :  but  this  one 
Ecclesia  has  innumerable  manifestations.  It  is  mani- 
fested in  the  assembly  of  the  local  (city  or  village) 
congregation,  but  quite  as  much  so  again  in  the  house- 
hold congregation,  and  in  innumerable  other  Christian 
assemblies,  —  and  what  is  there  represented  is  not  a 
local  or  a  household  congregation  as  such,  but  the 
Church  of  God.^^ 

1-  The  proverbial  use  of  this  phrase  appears  from  Tertullian,  De  exhort, 
castit.  c.  7,  ubi  tres,  ecclesia  est ;  De  baptismo  c.  6,  iibi  tres,  id  est  Pater  et 
Filius  et  Spiritus  Sanctus,  ibi  ecclesia,  quae  trium  corpus  est ;  De  pudic.  c. 
21,  ecclesiam  quam  Dominus  in  tribus  posuit ;  De  fuga  c.  14,  Sit  tibi  et 
in  tribus  ecclesia. —  Cf.  Ignatius,  ad  Smyrn.  8 :  2,  ottov  av  §  Xpia-ros  'irjaovs, 
fKfl,  T)  KaBoXiKT]  eKKKrjcria.  —  Hatch,  Organization^  note  24  to  p.  124,  in 
explanation  of  this  first  quotation  from  Tertullian  remarks :  "  This 
number,  three,  was  the  legal  minimum  of  a  Roman  Collegium !  "  To  this 
Sohm  remarks :  "  One  sees  how  easily  every  thing  Christian  can  be 
referred  to  a  pagan  origin." 

^^  'EkkXtjo-ui  is  sometimes  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  such  a  way 
that  its  etymological  sense  of  assemblt/  is  evidently  prominent  in  the  mind 
of  the  writer.  So  1  Cor.  11 :  18,  "  When  ye  come  together  ev  eKKXrja-ia  ;  " 
—  cf.  14:19,  28,  34,  35.  Ecclesia,  wherever  it  occurs,  denotes  the  as- 
sembly of  Christendom.  The  above  passages  would  be  literally  trans- 
lated by  our  familiar  idiom,  "  in  Church,"  though  of  course  the  actual 
connotation  of  our  modern  phrase  is  not  the  same.     The  principal  assem- 


138  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [II 

The  fundamental  idea  of  primitive  Christianity  is 
that  of  the  Church  (Ecclesia).  The  only  assembly 
which  it  recognized  was  the  Church-assembly  —  the 
assembly  of  the  Ecclesia,  the  assembly  of  Christendom. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  a  local  or  a  household  assem- 
bly as  such :  what  we  actually  call  a  local  assembly, 
namely,  the  principal  congregation  of  the  Christians  of 
a  particular  town,  is  what  it  is,  not  as  a  mere  local 
assembly,  but  as  a  manifestation  of  the  Ecclesia,  the 
assembly  of  the  people  of  Christ  collectively.  The  prin- 
cipal or  main  assembly  of  a  locality  (which  we  with  our 
modern  way  of  thinking  are  accustomed  to  regard  as 
the  authorized — if  not  the  full  —  assembly  of  all  the 
Christians  of  that  place)  was  not  an  absolutely  neces- 
sary or  invariable  expression  of  Christian  life  in  the 
primitive  age,  at  all  events  it  was  by  no  means  the  sole 
form  in  which  the  Ecclesia  was  manifested.  Side  by 
side  with  it  every  other  Christian  assembly  is  equally 
an  Ecclesia,  and  is  equally  empowered  to  perform  every 
"^  spiritual  function,  —  baptism,  the  Eucharist,  and  ordi- 
nation. It  is  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference  whether 
or  not  the  assembly  be  such  as  may  be  considered  rep- 
resentative of  the  local  community :  it  is  of  moment 
only  that  Christendom  be  represented,  that  the  Ecclesia 
be  assembled. 

The  idea  of  the  local  congregation  (the  parish)  —  in- 

■^        deed  of  any  congregation  in  the  narrower  modern  sense 

of  the  word  —  is  one  which  has  absolutely  no  bearing 

|,;upon  the  organization  of  the  Church.     There  is  no  such 

'I  thing  as  an  assembly  of  the  local  congregation,  or  of  the 

bly  of  the  Christians  of  a  particular  locality  bears  the  name  Ecclesia  be- 
cause it  constitutes  an  assembly,  not  of  this  or  that  local  community,  but 
of  the  whole  of  Christendom,  of  Israel; — precisely  the  same  was  it  with 
the  assembly  of  the  household  congregation. 


§  9]         THE   APOSTOLIC   NOTION   OF   THE   CHURCH  139 

household  congregation,  or  of  any  other  congregation  as 
such ;  and  consequently  there  are  no  organs  or  officers  ^  " 
of  such  congregation.^*  This  excludes  every  notion  of 
parochial  or  local  organization  —  more  generally,  of  any  / 
organization  which  is  expressed  in  terms  of  a  definite 
society,  club,  or  corporation.  In  Christendom  there  are 
none  but  ecumenical  assemblies  (Ecclesiae),  and  the  or- 
gans of  such  assemblies  are  ecumenical  organs  or  officers. 
The  Ecclesia  alone  exists,  and  consequently  the  Ecclesia 
alone  is  organized}^     Such  organization  as  develops  must 

^*  Hort,  The  Christian  Ecclesia,  pp.  114  sq.,  notes  "the  total  absence  of 
territorial  language  (so  to  speak)  in  the  designations  of  local  Ecclesiae." 
"  Three  times  the  Ecclesia  meant  is  designated  by  the  adjectival  local 
name  of  its  members,  viz.  in  the  salutations  to  1  and  2  Thessalonians 
(tji  fKKkrjaia  QeaaakoviKecov,  '  of  Thessalonians ; '  this  personal  description 
being  in  effect  a  partial  substitute  for  the  absence  of  anything  like 
KKrjTo'.s  dyt'otf),  and  in  a  refei'ence  to  the  Ecclesia  '  of  the  Laodiceans ' 
(rfi  Aao8iKta>v  eKKKrjarla)  in  Col.  iv.  16.  In  all  other  cases  of  a  single  city  the 
Ecclesia  is  designated  as  '  in  '  that  city :  so  in  the  salutations  of  1  and 
2  Corinthians,  Romans,  Philippians,  Ephesians,  Colossians;  also  Cenchreae 
(Rom.  xvi.  1),  and  each  of  the  seven  Ecclesiae  of  the  Apocalypse.  When 
the  reference  is  to  a  whole  region  including  a  number  of  cities  and  there- 
fore of  Ecclesiae  the  usage  is,  on  the  surface,  not  quite  constant.  Twice 
'  in  '  is  used,  for  Judaea  (1  Thes.  ii.  14),  and  Asia  (Apoc.  i.  4):  while  in 
each  case  the  form  used  can  be  readily  accounted  for  by  the  accompany- 
ing words  which  rendered  the  use  of  '■in'  the  only  natural  mode  of 
designation,  ...  In  all  other  (six)  cases,  however,  these  plural  designa- 
tions of  a  plurality  of  Ecclesiae  are  designated  by  a  genitive  of  the  re- 
gion;  the  Ecclesiae  of  Judaea,  Gal.  i.  22;  of  Asia,  1  Cor.  xvi.  19;  of 
Galatia,  1  Cor.  xvi.  1  and  the  salutation  to  the  Galatians ;  of  Macedonia, 
2  Cor.  viii.  1 ;  of  the  nations  or  Gentiles  generally  (tcov  iOvSav),  Rom. 
xvi.  4.  In  these  collective  instances  the  simple  and  convenient  genitive 
could  lead  to  no  misunderstanding.  But  we  find  no  instance  of  such  a 
form  as  '  the  Ecclesiae  of  Ephesus '  (a  city)  or  '  the  Ecclesia  of  Galatia  ' 
(a  region)."  "No  circumstances  had  yet  arisen,"  adds  Hort,  "which 
could  give  propriety  to  such  a  form  of  speech."  But  can  circumstances 
ever  arise  which  will  give  propriety  to  it?  The  name  "Church  of  Eng- 
land "  (or  "  English  Church  ")  can  no  more  be  justified  than  "  Lutheran 
Church,"  "Presbyterian  Church,"  "Baptist  Church." 

15  The  same  result  is  reached  if  we  consider  the  figure  of  the  body  as 
it  is  used  by  St.  Paul  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  Church  and  the  character 
of  its  organization.    In  1  Cor.  12  :  27  he  says  vfiui  Se  eore  a-Saiia  Xpia-Tov  koi  \y^ 


140  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

ever  aim  at  representing  Church  organization,  the  organ- 
ization of  the  universal  congregation,  the  Ecclesia. 

But  —  the   Ecclesia   as   a   whole   is   incapable   of  legal 
organization. 

fj^r)  eK  ^(povs.  He  calls  the  Corinthian  congregation  "  Christ's  body,"  and 
the  individuals  are  Christ's  members,  each  "in  his  part"  (R.  V.  marg.). 
As  Christ  has  but  one  body  (|j/  a-Syfia,  1  Cor.  12 :  12)  the  Corinthian  con- 
gregation is  not  "  a  body  of  Christ  "  (so  Hort,  pp.  145  sq.),  but  tJie  body 
of  Christ:  each  individual  congregation  represents  the  Ecclesia,  the 
whole  of  Christendom.  Only  so  is  it  intelligible  that  the  Apostle,  in 
immediate  connection  with  the  above  quoted  words,  speaks  of  the  or- 
ganization of  the  whole  church  (v.  28)  :  "  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the 
Church  (t^  eKKKT)(Tia),  first  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers," 
etc.,  in  order  to  exhibit  the  principles  of  organization  which  characterized 
the  congregation  at  Corinth,  just  as  he  applies  the  same  image  again  to 
the  congregation  at  Rome  (Rom.  12:4  sq.).  The  individual  congrega- 
tion is  not  to  be  distinguished  from  the  universal  congregation  of  Christ's 
people;  it  is  what  it  is  only  as  a  manifestation  of  the  whole  Church, 
and  it  is  organized  —  as  the  Apostle  Paul  explains  in  the  case  of  Rome 
and  Corinth  similarly  —  with  the  organization  of  the  whole  congregation  of 
God,  by  the  partition  of  the  spiritual  gifts  which  are  bestowed  upon  the 
Ecclesia.  —  From  this  we  may  see  that  there  is  no  discrepancy,  nor  even 
any  essential  difference,  between  the  application  of  the  figure  of  the  body 
as  St.  Paul  uses  it  in  his  earlier  epistles  and  in  Ephesians  and  Colossians. 
Some  difference  there  is,  of  course:  in  the  latter  case  the  Church  is 
spoken  of  absolutely,  without  reference  to  this  or  that  local  congregation. 
But  it  is  not  as  though  we  had  here  a  novel  point  of  view,  which  sug- 
gests a  different  author,  or  obliges  us  to  suppose  a  change  of  doctrine  on 
St.  Paul's  part,  namely,  that  he  had  left  behind  him  an  earlier  concep- 
tion of  the  Church  as  a  particular  local  society  (or  congeries  of  such 
societies)  and  risen  to  the  abstract  idea  of  the  whole  Church.  In  the 
first  place,  "the  Church"  of  Ephesians  and  Colossians  is  not  a  mere  ab- 
straction (a  heavenly  reality  which  transcends  human  conditions,  like 
the  "Jerusalem  which  is  above,"  Gal.  4:26);  and  no  more  is  "the 
Church  "  of  the  earlier  epistles  merely  a  concrete  society.  Enough  has 
already  been  said  to  make  it  clear  that  the  Church  in  Corinth,  the 
Church  in  Cenchreae,  or  wherever  it  might  be,  is  nothing  less  than  the 
Church  universal  ;  and  "the  Church"  that  is  spoken  of  in  Ephesians  and 
Colossians  can  be  no  more.  A  certain  difference  in  the  application  of 
the  figure  of  the  body  is  due  to  the  fact  that  in  the  earlier  epistles  the 
motive  was  a  practical  one,  to  enforce  the  obligations  of  the  members  to 
one  another;  while  in  Ephesians  and  Colossians  the  motive  was  doc- 
trinal, to  explain  the  relation  of  the  members  to  the  head.  What  is 
new  in  these  later  epistles  is  not  the  idea  of  one  universal  Ecclesia,  nor 


§  10]  THE   IDEA   OF   CHURCH   ORGANIZATION  141 

§  10,   THE   IDEA   OF   CHUECH   OEGANIZATION 

The  Ecclesia,  the  body  of  Christ,  the  bride  of  the 
Lord,  is  a  spiritual  entity,  transcending  the  norms  of 
human  societies  —  among  others  the  norm  of  law. 

Yet  for  all  this  the  Ecclesia  is  not  an  invisible  and 
ineffectual  ideal,  floating  vaguely  above  the  earth.  On 
the  contrary,  it  is  composed  of  human  members ;  it  is 
visible  and  effectual  in  all  assembles  of  Christendom ;  — 
yes,  and  even  in  the  spiritual  gifts  which  are  bestowed 
upon  individual  Christians  as  their  call  and  equipment 
for  service  in  and  for  the  body  of  Christ.  The  Ecclesia 
is  organized,  —  not  only  as  a  matter  of  fact,  but  as  the 
express  realization  of  its  ideal.  So  much  is  clear  from 
the  image  of  the  body.  The  body  of  Christ  has  its 
organs,  but  it  is  impossible  that  its  organization  be  of 
a  legal  nature. 

The  description  of  the  Church  in  terms  of  a  living 
organism  —  the  body  —  can  hardly  be  claimed  as  favor- 
able to  the  idea  of  legal  organization.  The  figure,  in- 
deed, is  commonly  applied  to  civil  states ;  but  even  in 
this  application  it  is  properly  used  to  explain  the  natural 
relation  of  the  members  to  one  another,  and  it  is  only 
by  a  certain  violence  that  it  can  be  employed  to  justify 
a  formal  or  legal  constitution.     The  application  of  this 

the  conception  of  the  singularity  and  unity  of  that  body  of  which  Christ 
is  head;  but  the  apostle's  mature  appreciation  of  Christ's  headship  over 
the  ci'eation,  of  which  the  Ecclesia  is  the  prime  mystery  and  revelation. 
Hort  observes  justly  (p.  147):  "In  '  Ephesians  '  and  Colossians  the 
change  comes  not  so  nmch  [better,  not  at  all]  by  an  expansion  or  ex- 
tension of  the  thought  of  each  local  Ecclesia  as  a  body  over  a  wider 
sphere  as  by  way  of  corollary  or  application,  so  to  speak,  of  larger  and 
deeper  thoughts  on  the  place  of  Christ  in  the  universal  economy  of 
things,  antecedent  not  only  to  the  Incarnation  but  to  the  whole  course 
of  the  world." 


142  THE  IDEA  OF  THE   CHURCH  [II 

figure  in  the  epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians 
absolutely  excludes  the  notion  of  a  legal  constitution. 
There  all  is  made  to  depend  upon  the  head}  The  head 
of  the  Church  is  Christ  (God) :  all  power  and  authority 

a  in  the  Church  is  from  him,  and  must  be  exercised  in  his 
11  name.    Is  it  possible  that  a  legal  clause  can  decide  whose 

'  utterance  must  be  taken  as  God's  voice  for  the  Church  ? 
The  incongruity  between  law  and  the  Church  is  not  to 
be  found  so  much  in  the  forcible  execution  of  its  pre- 
cepts (which  is  not  to  be  accounted  of  the  essence  of 
positive  law),  but  rather  in  ^^  formality  which  is  of  the 
very  nature  of  law,  —  that  is  to  say,  in  the  fact  that  it 
is  grounded  upon  a  definite  occurrence  of  the  jpast,  and 
is  thus  superior  to  criticism  and  in  a  measure  indifferent 
to  the  question  whether  in  the  present  moment  it  ap- 
pears substantially  justified  or  not.  Is  it  possible  there 
can  be  any  law  which  might  require  the  congregation  to 
accept  a  particular  decision  as  God's  decision  ?  Is  it 
possible  that  a  particular  teaching  must  count  for  God's 
teaching  because  the  teacher,  it  may  be,  was  some  while 
ago  legally  elected  or  otherwise  formally  installed? 
When  once  it  is  certain  that  God's  word  alone  must 
rule  in  the  Church,  and  not  man's,  then  is  it  equally 
certain  that  there  can  be  no  official  position  or  privilege 
involving  a  legal  authority  over  against  the  congre- 
gation. The  word  of  God  is  recognized  not  by  any 
formal  criterion,  but  by  its  inherent  power.  Christen- 
dom (the  Ecclesia)  has  only  to  follow  that  word  which 
it  recognizes  by  free  inward  consent  as  the  word  of 
God.  It  renders  obedience  only  to  the  word  which  is 
substantially  justified,  which  issues  in  truth  from   the 

1  Col.  2  :  19,  "  not  holding  fast  to  the  Head,  from  whom  all  the  body, 
being  supplied  and  knit  together  by  the  joints  and  bands,"  etc.  Also 
Col.  1  :  18;  Ephes.  1  :  22;  4  :  15;  cf.  1  Cor.  11  :  3. 


4 


§  10]  THE  IDEA  OF   CHURCH  ORGANIZATION  143  ' 

Spirit  of  God.    Tliere  can  be  no  exercise  of  legal  rule  in  the 
JEcdesia. 

The  oro-anic  constitution  of  the  Ecclesia  is  the  oro-an- 
ism  of  Christ's  body ;  the  life  of  the  Ecclesia  is  the  life 
and  active  influence  of  Christ.     Is  it  conceivable  that 
resolutions  can  be  passed  in  human  fashion  about  the 
organic  constitution  of  the  Ecclesia,  or  that  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Church  can  in  any  wise  be  determined  by 
the  measure  of  an  outward  and  formal  criterion  ?     It 
is  the  word  of  God  which  must  decide  the  organic  con- 
stitution of  Christendom.     Even  for  the  outward  order 
of   the    Church  —  the    administration   of   baptism   and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  the  constitution  of  offices,  the  ap- 
pointment of  officers,  etc.  —  it  is  the  divine  word  which 
is    directly   or    indirectly   decisive.      The    doctrine    of 
Church  order  must  be  a  part  of   the  exposition  and 
teaching  of  the  word  of  God  —  it  is  a  hiha^rj.     The" 
teaching  of  God's  word  includes  an  ethical  doctrine  as 
well  as  a  theological  —  the  doctrine  of   Cliristian  morals,  i 
And  upon  this  ethical  doctrine,  drawn  from  divine  reve- 
lation, depends  the  doctrine  of  Church  order.     Funda- 
mentally it  is  a  moral  law  which  prescribes,  not  only  | 
the  ethical  life  and  conduct  of  the  individual,  but  the  \ 
life  and  organization  of  the  Ecclesia  as  well.    With  this, 
all  thought  of  legislation  for  the  Church  in  the  sense 
of  positive  law  is  excluded.     In  the  place  of  legislation 
stands  doctrine  —  the  doctrine  of   Christ's  word — which 
must  render  an  answer  to  questions  about  the  life  and  i 
organization  of  Christendom,  and  does  render  it.     There  i 
can  he  no  legal  organization  and  no  legal  legislative  authority ' 
in  the  Ecclesia. 

D.   In  this   sense   the   Apostle  Paul  instructs  the  Eomans 
and  Corinthians  about  the  divinely  ordered  constitution  of  the 


144  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

Church  through  the  partition  of  spiritual  gifts  —  charismata, 
Eom.  12:3  sqq.,  1  Cor.  12  :  14  ;  and  the  Corinthians  about  the 
proper  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  1  Cor.  11 :  23  sqq. 
Likewise  his  precepts  about  purely  outward  conduct  in  the 
congregational  assemblies  —  the  covering  or  uncovering  of  the 
head  in  prayer  (1  Cor.  11),  the  orderly  conduct  of  meetings 
for  instruction  (1  Cor.  14) — are  given  as  "the  commandment 
of  the  Lord "  (1  Cor.  14 :  37) ;  and  hence  his  precepts  about 
such  things  as  are  external,  but  relevant  to  the  Church,  are 
part  of  his  "  doctrine  "  about  right  conduct  "  in  Christ  "  —  Ta<; 
oSov';  jjLOV  ev  ^pLara>,  Ka6o}<i  iravra'X^ou  ev  nrdar)  eKKXrjcria 
BiSdcTKco  (1  Cor.  4  :  17,  cf.  11 :  2).  See  further,  §  15.  There  is, 
it  is  true,  a  difference  to  be  observed  here.  The  Apostle  rec- 
ognizes that  controversy  is  possible  in  respect  to  such  outward 
precepts  as  rest  upon  no  direct  word  of  the  Lord,  —  though 
there  must  ever  be  07ie  solution  which  alone  entirely  cor- 
responds with  the  mind  of  Christ.  In  such  cases  St.  Paul 
regards  the  uniform  custom  in  all  the  Churches  as  a  determin- 
ing consideration :  —  "we  have  no  such  custom,  neither  the 
Churches  of  God,"  1  Cor.  11 :  16 ;  "  as  in  all  the  Churches  of  the 
saints,"  14  :  33.  The  traditional  usage  of  the  Christian  Churches 
he  accounts  a  circumstance  of  importance,  and  not  only  does 
he  ordain  the  same  regulations  for  all  the  congregations  of 
his  founding  (1  Cor.  4:17;  7  :  17),  but  he  takes  care  that  the 
order  established  in  his  Churches  shall  correspond  with  that 
observed  in  the  rest  of  Christendom.  On  the  one  hand  his 
fundamental  thought  is  this,  that  the  constitution  and  order 
of  the  congregation,  since  it  is  the  order  of  the  body  of  Christ,  — 
that  is,  Christendom,  —  must  be  accounted  in  all  its  parts  a 
divinely  designed  order  ("  for  God  is  not  a  God  of  confusion, 
but  of  peace,"  1  Cor.  14 :  33),  and  therefore  that  there  can  be 
only  one  solution  —  alike  consequently  for  all  congregations  — 
which  corresponds  fully  with  the  sense  of  the  divine  ordinance : 
on  the  other  hand  his  thought  is,  that  the  spirit  of  Christ 
prompts  to  love,  and  hence  to  subjection  to  one  another  in  "  low- 
liness of  mind  "  (see  especially  Phil.  2  : 1-11 ;  cf.  note  27)  and  — 
so  far  as  no  divine  command  interferes  —  to  agreement  upon 
such  ordinances  as  others  have  found  convenient,  leading  thus 


§  10]  THE  IDEA  OF   CHURCH  ORGANIZATION"  145 

to  similarity  even  in  the  outward  conduct  of  life  (1  Cor.  10  :  32, 
33).  It  is  evident  also  that  only  a  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  i/^ 
regime  was  grounded  by  the  apostle  directly  upon  a  word 
of  the  Lord :  other  questions  of  outward  order  are  resolved  only 
indirectly  by  God's  word  —  chiefly  by  bringing  to  bear  the 
general  obligation  of  brotherly  love.  This  distinction  was 
early  given  up,  and  thereby  the  way  was  prepared  for  Catholi- 
cism. Even  before  the  end  of  the  first  century  the  thought 
which  we  encounter  already  in  St.  Paul's  teaching — namely,  v<y 
a  regard  for  tradition,  founded  upon  the  consideration  that  only  -^ 

one  ecclesiastical  order  ftdhf  corresponds  to  the  divine  word  — 
was  given  a  radically  different  turn,  to  the  effect  that  the 
vjhole  ecclesiastical  order  as  it  was  settled  by  tradition  was 
to  be  regarded  as  resting  immediately  upon  God's  word,  and 
therefore  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  outward  order  of  the 
Church  was  directly  derived  from  the  word  of  God  given  by 
Christ  through  his  apostles.  In  this  sense  the  epistle  of  the 
Eoman  Church  to  the  Corinthians  (1  Clement,  c.  42  -44)  refers 
the  whole  traditional  order  of  congregational  government  — 
particularly  the  relation  of  the  congregational  officers  to 
the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  —  directly  to  a  divine  ordi- 
nance given  by  Christ  through  his  Apostles  (42  : 1,  2).  In  the 
same  sense  "  The  Teaching  of  the  Lord  through  the  Twelve  Apos- 
tles "  (about  A.  D.  100)  treats  not  only  of  Christian  morals  (in 
the  narrower  sense  in  which  we  understand  the  word),  but  also 
of  congregational  order  and  worship  —  see  Harnack,  Prolegomena, 
pp.  24  sq.  So  also  the  later  AiSaaKaXia  tcov  clttoo-toXcov  and 
other  pseudo-apostolic  writings.  Thus  arose  the  view  which  is 
still  maintained  by  the  Catholic  Church,  that  the  whole  tradi- 
tional Church  order  is  of  apostolic  origin — hence  of  divine 
institution,  since  it  is  derived  ultimately  from  Christ  himself  — 
and  that  therefore  the  whole  Church  order  as  such  constitutes 
a  part  of  the  moral  law  as  divinely  instituted,  and  also  that  the 
whole  Church  order  is  an  essential  and  inseparable  constituent 
of  Christian  faith  and  doctrine  —  which  necessarily  includes 
ethics.  On  this  historical  basis  rests  the  maxim  which  still 
holds  good  in  the  Catholic  Church,  that  the  fundamental  legal 
2)rinciples  of  Church  government  are  at  the  same  time  articles  of 

10 


146  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

faith.  The  first  practical  deduction  which  was  drawn  from 
this,  and  one  which  since  the  end  of  the  first  centmy  has  had 

^  a  profound  influence  upon  the  whole  development  of  Church 
government,  is  the  principle  that  uniformity  in  external  order 
as  well  as  in  doctrine  is  an  essential  condition  of  the  unity  of 
the  Church,  and  so,  for  the  individual  congregation,  is  an  essen- 
tial requisite  for  community  with  Christendom.  The  Christian- 
ity of  the  congregation  —  its  community  in  the  Ecclcsia  —  was 
made  to  depends  upon  questions  of  external  order  and  govern- 
ment. It  is  in  this  sense  Tertullian  says  (Apolog.  c.  39),  Corpus 
sumus  de  conscientia  religionis  et  disciplinae  unitate  et  spe 
foedere :  —  the  unity  of  Christendom  rests  not  only  upon  the 
like  faith  and  the  like  hope  (so  Ephes.  4  :  4-6),  but  also  upon 
the  like  ecclesiastical  order,  disciplinae  tmitas.  So  the  Koman 
presbytery  writes  to  Cyprian  (Cyprian,  epist.  30 : 1  ),  omnes 
eadem  censurae  et  disciplinae  consensione  sociati ;  and  Cyprian 
himself  (epist  25),  ut  apud  omnes  unus  actus  (in  relation 
to  the  discipline  of  the  lapsed)  et  una  consensio  secundum 
Domini  praecepta  teneatur.  The  requisition  of  unity  even  in 
matters  of  discipline  and  the  outward  ordering  of  congregational 
life  was  made  an  indispensable  condition.  Already  in  the 
second  century  this  occasioned  the  conflict  with  Montanism  and 
the  Easter  controversy  —  not  to  mention  other  instances.  The 
behavior  of  Victor,  the  Eoman  bishop,  his  excommimication  of 
the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor  on  account  of  their  practice  of 
celebrating  Easter  at  a  different  season,  is  only  to  be  accounted 
for  by  a  point  of  view  which  regards  dogma  and  discipline  as  of 
equal  value  for  the  unity  of  the  Church.  The  full  significance 
of  this  point  of  view  for  the  history  of  the  Church  can  be  un- 
derstood onl}'  from  the  whole  exposition  of  the  subject  which 
is  given  in  Sohm's  work.     One   may   assert  that  the  develop- 

\  ment  of  Catholic  organization  as  a  whole  has  been  conditioned 
\  ^y^it.  1  Everywhere  we  find  Catholicism  attaching  itself  to  the 
i^rimitive  idea,  but  always  perverting  its  meaning.  According 
/to  primitive  doctrine  (that  of  the  Apostle  Paul)  the  whole  order 
of.  the  Ecclesia  is  indeed  regulated  by  God's  commandment, 
but  still  in  large  part  only  so  far  as  the  commandment  of  broth- 
erly love  forbids  opposition  to  current  Church  practice.     After 


§  10]  THE  IDEA  OF   CHURCH  ORGANIZATION  147 

the  end  of  the  first  century  the  traditional  practice  of  the 
Church  was  regarded  in  itself  as  binding,  because  it  was  valued 
as  the  witness  for  the  direct  divine  —  "  apostolic  "  —  institution 
of  all  parts  of  Church  discipline.  So  soon  as  tradition  had 
acquired  this  significance  the  theory  of  the  Catholic  jure  divino 
organization  was  complete.  The  first  and  fundamental  thought, 
however,  of  this  development  is  that  Church  order  and  organi- 
zation is  an  order  and  organization  of  the  Ecclesia  as  the  body 
of  Christ,  —  which  so  far  is  the  primitive  doctrine  expounded 
above  in  the  text.  —  The  whole  of  this  note  is  from  Sohm, 
n.  2  to  p.  23. 

The  veritable  apostolic  doctrine,  drawn  from  God's 
Word,  is  this  :  that  the  organization  of  the  Ecclesia  is  not  a    ; 
legal  hut  a  charismatic  organization. 

Christendom  has  Christ  for  its  head,  for  its  members 
the   individual    Christians.     As   the   human   body  has 
various  members  for  various  services,  so  also  the  body 
of  Christendom  has  various  members,  which  are  called 
to  various  functions,  and  consequently  to  various  posi- 
tions  in   the  congregation.     Christendom  is  organizedj' 
through  the  impartation  of  spiritual  gifts  (charismata)]! 
which  are  at  once  an  equipment  of  individual  Christiana! 
for  a  special  activity  in  the  Ecclesia,  and  a  call  to  suchjl 
service.^     The  charisma  is  from  God :  so  also  the  service 
to  which   it  calls  ^  is  a   service  imposed  by  God,  —  in 
this  sense  a  God-given  office,  and  indeed  an  office  in 
the   service  of  the  Ecclesia,  not  of   this  or  that  local 
congregation. 

The   impartation   of    the   charismata   furnishes   the       /- 
Church  with  a  God-given  organization.     This  means  that 
there  is  not  an  abstract  uniformity  and  equality  among 
all  the  adherents  to  Christianity.     It  excludes  the  ato- 

2  This  fundamental  line  of  thought  St.  Paul  develops  in  Rom.  12  :  3-8, 
and  1  Cor.  cc.  12-14. 

8  1  Cor.  12  :  4-6,  11  ;  1  Pet.  4  :  10. 


148  THE   IDEA   OF   THE    CHURCH  [II 

mistic  way  of  regarding  the  Church  as  composed  of  so 
many  like  units  which,  having  the  same  character,  have 
also  the  same  rights  and  need  only  to  be  counted.  On 
the  contrary,  it  means  superiority  and  subordination, 
and  at  that  a  divinely  intended  superiority  and  subordi- 
nation, according  as  God  has  bestowed  upon  each  the 
endowments  which  are  requisite  for  service  in  the  iDody 
of  Christ.  The  charisma  of  each  individual  claims  recog- 
nition on  the  part  of  the  other  brethren  ;  and  in  so  far 
as  it  constitutes  a  call  to  a  guiding,  leading,  or  admin- 
istrative activity  in  the  Ecclesia,  it  exacts  obedience.^  So 
also  even  the  government  of  the  Ecclesia  is  the  exercise 
of  a  charisma,  which  betokens  a  divine  call  to  a  position 
of  rule. 

But  —  the  obedience  which  the  charisma  claims  as  its 
due  cannot  be  such  as  is  exacted  by  formal  legislation, 
but  only  free  obedience,  an  obedience  which  is  engen- 
dered by  the  conviction  that  it  is  rendered  actually  to 
the  will  of  God  expressed  through  the  medium  of  the 
spiritually  endowed  disciple.  The  charismatic  organi- 
zation can  be  realized  only  on  the  assumption  that  the 
/  spiritual  endowment  and  call  to  any  function  or  activity 

in  the  congregation  \&  freely  recognized  by  the  other  mem- 
bers, —  a  recognition  and  consent  which  can  be  born 
only  of  love.  Hence  it  is  that  nothing  is  said  of  legal 
obligation  :  but,  it  is  said,  "  the  greatest  is  lore."  For 
the  operation  of  all  the  charismata,  for  the  very  life 
of  the  body  of  Christ,  love  is  indispensable.  The  lofty 
praise  of  love  which  the  apostle  chants  in  the   thir- 

*  1  Cor.  16  :  15,  16,  —  "The  house  of  Stephanas  have  set  themselves 
to  minister  unto  the  saints,"  therefore  the  Apostle  exhorts,  "  that  ye  also 
be  in  subjection  unto  such,  and  to  every  one  that  helpeth  in  the  work 
and  laboreth."  Cf.  1  Thes.  5  :  12,  13,  and  Heb.  18  :  17.  1  Clem,  ad 
Cor.  38  :  1,  vTroTaaaeada  eKuaros  ra  TrXrjcriov  avrov  Kadas  koI  eredrj  ev  rat 
Xapiafiari  aiirov. 


§  10]  THE   IDEA   OF   CHURCH   ORGAXIZATION  149 

teenth  chapter  of  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  has 
chiefly  in  view,  as  the  context  shows/  the  love  which 
is  manifested  in  the  congregational  life,  the  love  which 
prompts  the  free  employment  of  one's  own  charisma  in 
the  service  of  the  Church,  and  the  no  less  ready  subor- 
dination of  oneself  to  the  special  charismatic  endow- 
ments of  others,  — "  that  there  be  no  schism  in  the 
body."  The  obedience  which  is  due  the  charisma,  and 
in  fact  all  subordination  in  the  Church,  is,  as  the  Apostle 
Paul  here  most  emphatically  testifies,  a  duty  of  love  and 
not  of  law.  It  is  likewise  to  be  understood  that  this  obe- 
dience is  a  duty  which  is  owed  to  God,  and  not  specifi- 
cally to  him  who  exercises  the  charisma.  The  very 
thought  of  claiming  superiority  or  exacting  subordina- 
tion on  formal  grounds  is  therewith  rendered  impossible. 
It  was  not  merely  the  expectation  of  the  speedy  end 
of  the  world  that  excluded  in  the  early  age  all  thought 
of  the  establishment  of  an  external  order  on  this  earth, 
a  legal  organization  devised  for  permanence.  No,  it 
belongs  to  the  very  ideal  of  Christendom  :  the  requisi- 
tion which  this  ideal  makes  of  the  Ecclesia  is,  that  there 
shall  be  no  legal  organization !  How  could  one  even 
think  of  giving  to  Christendom,  to  the  body  of  Christ, 
the  organization  of  a  secular  society  with  its  council  of 
elders,  archons,  etc.  !  Christendom  lives  upon  its  trust 
in  Christ  who  guides  and  conducts  it.  He  will  also 
awaken  in  his  congregation  the  gift  of  government. 
One  gift,  one  charisma,  there  is  to  which  is  intrusted 

^  The  loth  cap.  of  1  Cor.  stands  between  the  two  (12th  and  14th) 
which  expressly  deal  with  the  problem  of  order  in  the  Ecclesia.  It 
shows  "  the  more  excellent  way,"  the  power  which  stands  highest  in  the 
Ecclesia,  —  higher  than  the  charismata,  —  the  power  of  love.  Without 
love  all  the  spiritual  gifts  profit  nothing.  Love  prompts  the  right  use 
of  the  charismata,  and  at  the  same  time  renders  effectual  their  operation 
in  Christendom  as  concordant  functions  of  a  well  compacted  body. 


150  THE  IDEA   OF  THE  CHURCH  [II 

the  conduct  of  the  congregation,  the  government  of  the 
Church  in  Christ's  name  :  the  gift  of  teaching  (see  §  15). 

E.  The  Uvely  discussion  which  has  followed  Sohm's  work  in 
Germany  deals  chiefly,  as  might  be  expected,  with  the  funda- 
mental question  which  he  raises  as  to  the  relation  of  law  to  the 
Church,  Most  of  Sohm's  critics  deny  his  thesis  that  law  is 
incompatible  with  the  very  idea  of  the  Ecclesia  —  that  there 
can  be  no  legal  organization  of  the  Ecclesia  —  without  attempt- 
ing to  invalidate  the  historical  proofs  upgn  which  he  founds 
it.  This  attempt  to  vindicate  the  legitimacy  of  law  in  the 
Church  is  to  be  regarded  not  so  much  as  an  apology  for  the 
existing  order  —  in  the  Lutheran  Church  or  any  other  —  as  an 
anxious  maintenance  of  a  condition  which  is  presumed  essential 
to  any  order  whatsoever.  It  is  conceded  that  some  conceptions 
of  law,  or  perhaps  the  application  of  law  of  any  sort  to  some 
spheres  of  Christian  life  (such  as  faith  and  doctrine),  may  be 
contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  Chm-ch.  But,  it  is  said,  all 
depends  upon  what  we  mean  by  "law." 

So  says  Kahl  {Lehrsystem  des  Kirchenrechts,  1894,  p.  73), 
who  is  commonly  regarded  as  the  ablest  of  Sohm's  critics,  and 
who  has  certainly  made  the  most  acute  analysis  of  the  idea  of 
law  in  relation  to  the  Church.  And  it  does  seem  as  if  one  had 
only  to  feel  about,  and  be  sure  to  find  sooner  or  later  some  sense 
in  which  law  —  or  some  sort  of  law  —  might  be  compatible 
with  the  idea  of  the  Ecclesia.  It  seems  as  if  some  way  there 
must  be  to  modify  the  absoluteness  of  Sohm's  denial :  "  No 
legal  organization  for  the  Ecclesia."  So  I  thought  myself,  and 
so  one  is  likely  to  think  until  the  historical  facts  which  Sohm 
adduces  have  had  time  to  make  their  due  impression,  —  so  new 
is  the  notion  that  the  Church,  even  as  a  society  of  men  in  this 
world  (that  is,  the  "  visible  Church  "),  cannot  be  subjected  to  the 
norm  of  a  purely  human  and  secular  society. 

But  a  careful  study  of  Kahl's  argument  is  likely  to  disabuse 

one  of  this  expectation,  —  and  all  the  more,  the  more  clearly 

we  recognize  its  acuteness.     Kahl  complains  (p.  77)  that  Sohm 

nowhere  gives  an  exhaustive  account  of  the  nature  of  law,  but 

i  introduces  it  from  the   beginning  as  a  thing  which  is  self- 


§10]  THE  IDEA  OF  CHURCH  ORGANIZATION  151 

evidently  opposed  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Church.  But  / 
after  all,  positive  law  is  a  very  definite  conception,  and  one  does 
not  need  an  exhaustive  account  of  it  to  understand  what  it 
is  in  its  essential  nature.  In  recognizing  that  compulsion  — 
effective  sanction  —  is  not  essential  to  the  idea  of  law,  and  in 
laying  the  whole  stress  upon  the  formal  nature  of  law  (see 
above,  p.  142),  Sohm  certainly  takes  the  word  in  a  very  general 
sense  —  I  believe  the  most  general  sense  possible.  Kahl  does 
not  attempt  to  invalidate  this  definition  of  law,  and  I  can  see 
no  pertinence  in  his  remark  on  p.  77,  that  formality  is  not  an 
exclusive  characteristic  of  law.  Neither  is  it  pertinent  to  ob- 
serve (pp.  52,  53)  that  the  actions  to  which  morality  and  reli- 
gion prompt  may  properly  be  made  the  subject  of  law;  for, 
though  of  course  morality  and  religion  themselves,  as  affairs  of 
the  heart,  cannot  be  legally  enforced,  it  is  not  claimed  that  the 
actions  corresponding  even  to  Christian  morality  and  religion 
may  not  be  made  the  object  of  enforcement  in  any  civil  soci- 
ety ;  but  only  that  the  Ecclesia  —  I  do  not  say  should  not,  but' 
—  cannot  be  subjected  to  a  legal  norm. 

It  is  true,  the  Church  is  a  society  of  men  among  men,  and  it 
may  seem  as  if,  to  maintain  the  stability  or  preserve  the  very 
existence  of  the  Church,  legal  means  must  be  used  to  enforce 
tlie  obligations  of  Christian  morality  and  religion.  But  a  legal 
constitution  cannot  be  applied  to  the  Church.  Any  company 
of  Christians  can,  with  intent  to  legalize  the  Church,  constitute 
a  secular  society  and  consent  to  subject  themselves  to  the  laws 
which  the  majority  may  see  fit  to  impose :  but  what  is  thereby  \ 
legalized  and  fortified  is  not  the  Church,  but  a  surrogate  for  jV 
the  Church,  namely,  a  denomination.  The  greater  or  fewer 
number  of  adherents  does  not  affect  at  all  the  essence  of  what 
we  call  denominationalism ;  that  it  is  a  particular  or  local  mani- 
festation of  Christianity  (one  among  many)  is  not  essential  to 
the  notion:  the  Church  of  England  is  a  denomination,  the 
Eoman  Church  is  a  denomination,  so  is  every  legalized  Chris- 
tian society  which  claims  to  represent  the  Church,  and  the 
aspiration  after  what  is  improperly  called  the  "  corporate  "  re- 
union of  Christendom  is  commonly  an  aspiration  after  a  uni- 
versal denomination.    Ahsit !    Better  a  thousand  denominations 


152  THE  IDEA    OF  THE  CHURCH  [H 

than  one !  But  the  Church  (Ecclesia)  evades  the  meshes  of  legal 
organization,  since  it  is  effectually  constituted  wherever  two  or 
three  disciples  are  gathered  together  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  — 
a  condition  which  no  legal  (formal)  criterion  can  ever  determine. 

Practically,  this  is  what  Kahl  pleads  for :  a  legalized  de- 
nomination, not  a  legalized  Church.  He  gives  an  exhaustive 
explanation  of  the  nature  of  law  in  its  relation  to  the  Church 
(pp.  67  sq.),  but  in  conclusion  he  reaches  a  definition  of  law 
which  is  more  self-evidently  opposed  to  the  nature  of  the 
Church  —  if  the  idea  presented  above  in  the  last  two  sections 
is  a  right  one  —  than  is  the  more  general  and  abstract  defini- 
tion which  Sohm  posits.  He  says  (p.  79) :  "  The  nature  of  the 
legal  function  is  that  it  makes  the  will  of  the  whole  effective  in 
respect  to  particular  conduet."  "  The  will  of  the  whole  "  {der 
Gesamtheit)  can  practically  mean  nothing  else  than  the  will 
of  the  plurality,  or  of  a  legally  defined  majority.  But  in  the 
Church  it  is  not  the  will  of  the  whole  which  counts,  but  only 
the  will  of  God.  How  can  the  vote  of  a  legal  majority  deter- 
mine what  is  the  will  of  God  with  respect  to  the  conduct  of  the 
i  Ecclesia  ? 

Kahl  concedes  that  law  is  not  contained  in  the  idea  of  the 
Church,  but  he  argues  that  it  is  not  excluded  (p.  68).  It  is  only 
the  visible  Church  which  can  be  thought  of  as  having  any 
relation  to  law.  But  it  is  not  maintained  that  even  the  visible 
Church  requires  a  legal  organization  as  an  ideal  necessity,  but 
only  that  it  has  an  aptitude  to  receive  it,  if  practical  necessity 
requires  it  (pp.  67,  69,  74,  75).  This  practical  necessity,  how- 
ever, does  not  always  and  everywhere  exist  in  the  same  measure, 
nor  require  the  same  degree  of  legal  exaction.  It  sometimes 
does  not  exist  at  all.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  apostolic  Church 
had  no  legal  constitution,  because  it  required  none  (pp.  69,  75). 
JLaw  corresponds  to  the  imperfection  of  the  Church :  it  is  ex- 
Icluded  from  the  ideal  of  the  perfect  Church  (pp.  53, 75).  In  any 
case,  there  are  some  spheres  of  ecclesiastical  life  to  which  it  may 
not  be  applied  —  particularly  the  sphere  of  doctrine  or  teaching. 

The  weakness  of  Kahl's  position  is  revealed  when  we  dis- 
cover that  in  the  last  analysis  he  has  not  justified  the  legaliza- 
tion of  the  visible  Church,  but  only  the  constitution  of  another 


§  10]  THE   IDEA   OF   CHURCH   ORGANIZATION  153 

body  which  he  expressly  discriminates  from  it  and  calls  the 
"  legal  Church  "  (pp.  69  sq.).  He  says  :  "  The  one  (the  visible 
Chm-ch)  rests  upon  divine  institution,  the  other  (the  legal 
Church)  upon  the  justification  (^Folgerichtigkeit)  of  human  devel- 
opment. In  the  visible  Church  the  solidarity  of  the  members  re- 
poses upon  the  true  use  and  appropriation  of  Word  and  Sacrament 
through  the  Holy  Ghost  —  and  upon  that  alone.  The  solidarity 
of  the  legal  Church  is  constituted  merely  by  the  fact  of  the  social 
contract  of  union  by  the  members.  A  double  consequence  may 
be  deduced  from  this  :  in  the  first  place,  not  all  the  members 
even  of  the  true  visible  Church  need  necessarily  stand  within 
the  legal  Church;  in  the  second  place,  many  who  are  bound  to- 
gether in  the  legal  Church  may  still  remain  outside  the  visible 
Church,  because  (and  in  so  far  as)  they  lack  the  principle  of 
unity  which  depends  upon  the  true  dispensation  of  Word  and 
Sacrament.  Both  consequences  are  impossible  from  the  Cath- 
olic stand-point,  because  visible  and  legal  Church  are  according 
to  that  conception  the  same."  So  then,  members  of  the  visible 
Church  are  not  necessarily  members  of  the  invisible,  and 
vice  versa  ;  also,  members  of  the  legal  Church  are  not  necessa- 
rily members  of  the  visible  Church  (still  less  of  the  invisible), 
and  vice  versa.  It  would  be  difficult  to  avoid  the  consequence 
that  we  have  here  three  Churches,  and  not  merely  three  aspects 
of  the  Church.  To  such  an  end  as  this  we  are  brought  by  the 
attempt  to  elude  the  force  of  Sohm's  claim,  that  there  can  be 
no  legal  organization  of  the  Ecclesia. 

The  distinction  between  the  visible  and  invisible  Church, 
as  it  is  commonly  held,  has  done  woful  injmy ;  but  the  doc- 
trine of  the  legal  Church  is  tenfold  more  pernicious.  This 
notion  is  not  altogether  novel  in  Germany  (see  v.  Scheurl,  Die 
geistliche  und  die  rechtliche  Kirche,  1861),  and  it  is  new  to  us 
only  as  ?,  formula.  The  thing  itself  is  what  we  know  as  de- 
nominationalism,  and  the  formula  is  the  expression  of  the 
denominational  principle.  In  reality  there  can  be  no  legal 
Church,  but  only  a  legal  denomination  —  a  surrogate  for  the 
Church.  We  have  the  invisible,  the  visible,  and  the  legal  Church ; 
but  how  can  we  call  this  society  in  the  third  remove  from 
the  Ecclesia  "  a   Church "  without   depotentiating   the   name  ? 


154  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [II 

This  is  in  effect  what  Kahl  does.  The  first  of  his  three 
principal  objections  against  the  argument  of  Sohm  —  that  he 

?ives  no  exhaustive  account  of  the  nature  of  law  —  we  have 
Iready  considered ;  the  second  is  here  in  point,  namely,  that 
he  identifies  the  Church  and  the  Kingdom  of  God."  This 
criticism,  even  if  it  be  just,  is  not  much  to  the  point:  the 
identification  of  the  Church  and  the  Kingdom  is  not  essential 
to  Sohm's  argument,  and  in  my  exposition  of  the  subject  I  have 
taken  pains  not  to  seem  to  confound  the  two  ideas.  But  Kahl's 
own  view  is  not  far  removed  from  this.  The  visible  Church 
in  its  perfect  or  ideal  state  can  and  must  dispense  with  law 
(p.  80),  and  stands  at  no  great  remove  from  the  Kingdom. 
But  the  Church  as  it  is  at  present  is  imperfect ;  it  is  a  distant 
approximation  of  the  Kingdom  —  it  is  the  Kingdom  in  process 
of  becoming.  The  legal  Church  again,  just  in  so  far  as  legalism 
more  or  less  prevails  in  it,  is  a  more  or  less  distant  approxi- 
mation of  the  true  Chm-ch  visible.  What  a  gap  there  is  here 
between  the  Kingdom  and  the  legal  Church !  Can  the  name 
Church  be  further  depotentiated  ?  If  practical  necessity  de- 
mands law,  let  it  frankly  be  recognized  as  the  law  of  a  denom- 
ination, not  the  law  of  the  Church,  nor  of  a  Church. 

We  must  resort  to  law,  —  so  it  is  said.  Yet  we  cannot  fail 
to  remark  the  impotence  of  law  to  accomplish  the  end  at  which 
it  aims :  it  aims  at  establishing  legalized  unity  and  uniformity, 
it  has  accomplished  legalized  separation  and  divergency.  It 
has  defeated  its  own  aim,  and  it  must  defeat  it,  though  many 
still  fatuously  trust  in  law  to  reverse  the  process  and  break 
down  the  divisions  that  it  has  created.  The  denominations  are 
wounds  in  the  body  of  Christ  which  have  been  created  by  law 
and  never  will  be  cured  by  it.  I  am  aware  that  there  are  still 
many  who  would  justify  denominationalism ;  —  and  that  is  the 
only  way  to  justify  law  in  the  Ecclesia.  Kahl  tries  unsuccess- 
fully to  prove  (pp.  79  sq.)  that  legal  exaction  is  not  incompati- 
ble with  the  free  operation  of  the  one  divine  principle  of  unity 
and  conformity  in  the  Ecclesia ;  namely,  meek  subjection  to  one 
another  in  the  spirit  of  brotherly  love.  But,  granted  this  were 
true  within  the  limits  of  a  single  denomination,  it  manifestly 
is  not  true  as  between  one  denomination  and   another.     De- 


§  10]  THE  IDEA  OF  CHURCH  ORGANIZATION"  155 

nominationalism,  ia  so  far  as  it  hinders  the  free  exercise  of 
brotherly  love  as  between  the  members  of  the  whole  Church, 
and  so  discards  the  one  factor  which  is  able  to  effect  peace, 
unity,  concord ;  in  so  far  as  it  claims  the  services  of  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ  not  for  the  Ecclesia,  but  for  the  denomination ; 
in  so  far  as  it  banishes  the  whole  practical  idea  of  the  Church 
catholic,  and  elimioates  the  motive  which  prompts  the  members 
to  act  upon  a  principle  fit  always  to  be  law  universal  for  the 
Ecclesia  of  God ;  in  that  degi-ee  it  constitutes  verily  "  a  schism 
of  the  body."  I  say  again :  better  many  wounds  of  the  body 
than  one  deadly  wound ;  better  many  schisms  than  one  great 
schism  —  one  universal  tyranny  of  law  successfully  imposed 
upon  all  in  the  name  of  God.  But  better  far  "  that  there  be 
no  schism  of  the  body." 

Tliose  who  recognize  that  denominationalism  is  inconsistent 
with  the  idea  of  the  Ecclesia  may  profitably  reflect  upon  the  fact 
that  it  was  established  and  is  now  maintained  by  law.  The 
dream  of  one  universal  denomination  has  never  been  fulfilled, 
the  Ecclesia  as  a  whole  has  never  been  legally  organized. 
There  is  one  cure  for  denominationalism,  which,  though  it  is 
purely  theoretical,  and  must  appear  utterly  paradoxical,  is  well 
worth  considering.  Let  denominationalism  (legalized  Chris- 
tianity) proceed  (not  in  the  dhection  at  which  it  aims,  but  in 
that  towards  which  it  inevitably  tends)  to  the  utmost  limit 
of  separation ;  let  it  divide  and  redivide  till  it  reaches  the  unit 
of  the  Church,  the  individual,  till  it  leaves  no  two  Christians  in 
one  denomination,  but  each  a  denomination  by  himself ;  —  and 
at  once  there  is  no  longer  any  denomination,  the  social  com- 
pact which  creates  the  law  is  dissolved,  and  each  member  of 
Christ  finds  himself  simply  and  immediately  a  member  of  the 
Ecclesia,  subject  to  no  law  but  that  which  by  the  illumination 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  he  recognizes  as  the  law  of  God  for  the 
whole  Ecclesia. 

There  remains  to  consider  only  the  first  of  Kahl's  three  points 
of  criticism  (p.  74) :  he  retorts  upon  Sohm  that  he  himself  treats 
one  sort  of  organization  as  a  law  for  the  Church  in  all  ages,  — 
namely,  the  charismatic  organization  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 
Even  as  a  retort  this  is  not  well  founded.    It  is  not  because  the 


156  THE  IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

apostolic  Church  was  actually  so  organized,  that  this  must  be 
the  only  organization  always  for  the  Ecclesia.  At  this  point 
Sohm  lays  the  chief  stress,  not  upon  the  historical  development, 
hut  upon  a  doctrinal  thesis.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  nothing  strange 
nor  unreasonable  in  the  belief  that  the  organization  of  the 
apostolic  Church  was  as  such  normative  for  the  Church  in  sub- 
sequent generations ;  —  at  the  very  least  it  is  a  factor  which  can- 
not be  ignored.  It  is  not,  however,  by  conforming  to  the  spirit 
of  apostolic  organization,  but  by  slavishly  copying  its  details, 
that  it  is  made  a  legal  norm.  But  in  the  last  resort,  the  reason 
why  a  charismatic  organization  is  the  only  admissible  organiza- 
tion, is  the  fact  that  it  is  the  only  organization  which  is  con- 
sistent with  the  nature  of  the  Ecclesia.  This  is  the  point 
which  Sohm  presses  with  the  utmost  vigor.  It  is  not  merely 
that  law  is  "  not  included  "  in  the  idea  of  the  Ecclesia,  it  is 
positively  excluded  by  it.  It  is  not  pertinent  to  press  the  plea 
that  there  is  a  practical  necessity  for  legal  organization :  the 
conclusion  which  we  have  reached  is,  not  that  it  is  inexpedient, 
but  that  it  is  impossible  to  impose  a  legal  organization  upon  the 
Ecclesia.  The  legal  Church  ("  rechtliche  Kirche  ")  as  such  is 
not  an  Ecclesia,  and  its  law  is  not  ecclesiastical  law  but  de- 
nominational law.  This  law  lacks  the  power  to  effect  what  it 
aims  to  effect,  for  it  has  no  ecclesiastical  sanction,  but  only  a 
denominational  sanction :  it  can  neither  admit  to  the  Ecclesia 
(even  the  visible  Ecclesia),  nor  exclude  from  it.  The  legal 
Church  is  not  an  effective  surrogate  for  the  Ecclesia.  It  is  an- 
other society  which  stands  over  against  the  Ecclesia  and  is 
fundamentally  indifferent  to  it,  —  except  as  it  pretends  to 
represent  it. 

§  11,     SIGNIFICANCE   OF   OEDEE  AND   CUSTOM   IN 
THE   CHUECH 

It  may  at  first  appear  as  though  Sohm's  argument 
were  designed  to  prove  the  impossibility  of  effecting 
or  maintaining  any  order  or  organization  in  the  Ecclesia 
—  especially  any  uniform  order.     This  of  course  is  not 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  ORDER  AND  CUSTOM  157 

the  case,  as  even  the  preceding  section  will  suffice  to 
show.  Order  and  organization  are  ends  which  are 
perfectly  compatible  with  the  idea  of  the  Ecclesia, — 
nay,  more,  they  are  positively  requisite  to  the  fulfilment 
of  it.  Visible  unity,  as  it  is  manifested  in  uniformity 
of  organization  and  conformity  of  custom,  is  an  ideal 
which  belongs  essentially  and  peculiarly  to  the  Ecclesia ; 
and  the  better  the  true  nature  of  the  Ecclesia  is  under- 
stood, so  much  the  more  is  one  prompted  to  pursue 
this  end.  The  ideal  of  the  Ecclesia  exacts  conformity 
—  conformity  not  only  to  precedent  local  custom  in  the 
individual  Church,  but,  among  all  the  Churches  of  God, 
to  universal  custom :  —  conformity  in  things  essential, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  out  of  obedience  to  the  express 
command  of  God;  but  likewise  in  things  relatively 
indifferent,  merely  for  the  sake  of  conformity,  and  of 
the  peace  and  unity  which  ensues  from  it.  These  ends 
are  consonant  with  the  idea  of  the  Ecclesia,  only  — 
the?/  are  not  to  le  attained  hy  legal  means. 

With  this  it  may  seem  as  though  the  ends  them- 
selves were  prohibited,  for  we  are  not  used  to  think 
of  any  other  means  to  compass  them  but  law.  And 
yet,  what  are  the  means  we  do  in  practice  constantly 
rely  upon  to  effect,  if  not  to  maintain,  the  ends  of 
uniform  order  and  organization  ?  What  is  the  motive 
to  which  we  appeal  to  effect  the  laws  themselves  ?  to 
insure  a  majority  vote  for  such  ordinances  as  shall  not 
prove  unendurable  to  the  minority?  What  force  do 
we  rely  upon  to  bring  about  the  concord  which  law 
merely  registers  and  —  it  is  supposed  —  maintains  ? 
For  instance,  to  take  an  extreme  and  unfavorable  case : 
We  dream  of  effecting  the  unity  of  Christendom  by 
breaking  down  the  legal  walls  of  partition  erected 
about  the   separate   denominations,  and    including   all 


158  THE  IDEA   OF  THE  CHURCH  [II 

again  under  a  common  law.  The  difficulties  which 
have  to  be  overcome  are  confessedly  great,  and  all  the 
greater  because  the  differences  are  formulated  in  terms 
of  law.  Great  sacrifices  of  personal  pride  and  preju- 
dice are  demanded,  and  they  are  the  greater  because 
they  are  exacted  in  favor  of  a  neio  latv.  Law  itself 
cannot  produce  this  concord,  law  alone  cannot  maintain 
it ;  and  neither  within  the  denominations  nor  without 
them  (in  the  state)  is  there  nowadays  any  force  which 
can  compel  uniformity.  These  great  sacrifices  must 
be  free  sacrifices,  and  there  is  but  one  force  which 
can  prompt  them,  namely,  brotherly  love  —  or,  more 
specifically,  meekness,  an  ideal  which  is  highly  character- 
istic of  the  New  Testament,  and  which  denotes  the 
readiness  to  subordinate  one's  own  profit  and  preference 
to  the  weal  of  others  in  a  spirit  of  humble  service. 

F.  Above,  in  note  D,  Sohm  properly  lays  stress  upon  love 
as  the  bond  of  peace  and  order  in  the  congregation ;  but  it 
[is  still  more  important  to  observe  the  operation  of  meekness, 
which  is  the  most  characteristic  aspect  of  love  in  the  Christian 
sense,  and  is  here  peculiarly  in  point  as  the  specific  cure  of 
social  disorder  in  the  Ecclesia.  The  popular  idea  of  meekness 
represents  it  as  the  least  attractive  of  virtues,  —  in  fact,  as  the 
only  repellent  virtue,  and  consequently  no  proper  virtue  at  all, 
since  it  does  not  awaken  a  response  in  the  conscience.  A  cer- 
tain mealy-mouthed  hypocrisy  clings  to  our  conception  of  this 
word,  but  this  is  due  to  an  age-long  misinterpretation  of  its 
meaning.  It  does  not  mean  primarily  a  lowly  opinion  of  one- 
self in  comparison  with  God  or  with  one's  fellows ;  it  means  no 
thinking  of  oneself  at  all,  or  of  all  that  one  finds  within  oneself 
to  humble  one,  but  on  the  contrary  a  thinking  of  others  (Phil. 
2  :  4)  with  complete  abstraction  of  egoistic  regards.  According 
to  St.  Bernard  the  meek  man  is  he  who  verissima  sui  agnitione 
sibi  ipse  vilescat.  With  this  definition  the  great  monk  pro- 
foundly impressed  not  only  the  character  of  monasticism,  but 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE   OF   ORDER  AND  CUSTOM  159 

of  medieval  piety  in  general ;  and  our  modern  piety  still  feels 
his  influence.     In  reality,  however,  meekness  is  not  a  products 
of  self-examination,  but  the  expression  of  self-abnegation :  it  i 
means  not  a  notion  about  oneself,  but  a  recognition  of  the  actual ' 
^position  in  which  we  stand  with  relation  to  our  fellow  men;, 
namely,  the  position  of  a  servant,  which  we  have  willingly  as- 
sumed or  cheerfully  endure.     Only  as  we  practically  realize 
this  relation  of  service,  ignoring  our  own  advantage  —  even  the 
highest,  the  saving  of  our  souls  (Matt.  16 :  25 ;  cf.  Eom.  9 :  3) 
—  for   the   sake  of   others,  can  we   show   meekness   without 
hypocrisy,  endure  offences  without  feeling  affront,  and  fulfil 
the   impossible    injunction  of  St.  Paul  (Phil.   2 :  3),  to   count 
others  better  than  ourselves  —  not,  to  be  sure,  as  the  result 
of  a  critical  comparison  of  respective  moral  worth,  but  as  the 
natural  expression  of  the  attitude  of  a  true  servant  toward 
him   whose  welfare  he  accounts  the  end  to  which  his  own 
private  ends  are  subordinated  and  in  view  of  which  he  regards 
even  his  very  existence  as  merely  a  means. 

The  meaning  of  this  significant  word  is  to  be  understood  only 
from  a  study  of  its  history  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  two 
words  ^J)?  and  1^1^  (rendered  consistently  by  "  poor "  and 
"  meek  "  in  our  Eevised  Version)  are  so  closely  related  that 
they  are  frequently  used  in  the  same  connection  and  sometimes 
almost  interchangeably.  Israel's  belief  in  God  as  the  righteous 
judge,  the  vindicator  of  the  oppressed  and  restorer  of  the  per- 
verted equities  of  human  life,  involved  the  recognition  of  a 
peculiarly  close  relation  between  God  and  the  poor.  "  Because 
I  am  poor,  God  is  my  helper,"  is  a  thought  which  is  implied 
again  and  again  in  the  Psalms.  For  instance,  in  the  last 
verse  of  the  40th  Psalm  these  two  clauses  stand  without  any 
expressed  relation :  "  But  I  am  poor  and  needy ;  the  Lord 
thinketh  upon  me."  Our  English  versions  supply  "  yet "  or 
an  equivalent  expression,  as  though  it  were  natural  for  God  to 
notice  the  lofty,  but  strange  that  he  should  have  respect  unto  the 
lowly :  whereas  the  theology  of  Israel  implies  on  the  contrary 
a  "  therefore."  On  the  other  hand,  the  poor  were  observed  to  be 
fitted  by  their  very  poverty,  and  by  the  sense  of  their  helpless- 
ness, for  trust  in  God  and  the  attitude  of  humble  service  which 


160  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [n 

he  demands.  So,  from  a  theory  about  the  character  of  God  and 
from  observation  of  the  character  of  men,  it  became  a  settled 
maxim  in  Israel  that  God  and  the  poor  stand  in  a  peculiar  rela- 
tion to  one  another,  —  of  protection  on  his  part,  and  of  trust 
and  obedience  upon  theirs. 

To  this  use  of  ' J^  —  the  poor  —  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
use  of  1 J^  —  the  meek  —  closely  corresponds  :  it  differs  from 

it  only  in  laying  stress  upon  the  ethical  disposition  which  is 
the  accompaniment  of  poverty,  rather  than  upon  the  state  of 
poverty  itself;  but  there  is  no  word  in  the  Old  Testament 
to  represent  the  abstract  noun  meekness,  and  it  is  doubtful 
if  it  was  thought  of  as  a  character  which  might  exist  apart 
from  lowliness  of  station. 

In  the  Septuagint  the  Greek  words  irrw-xp'i  —  poor  —  and 
irpav<i  —  meek  —  are  used  respectively  to  translate  these  two 
Hebrew  terms,  and  in  the  New  Testament  too  they  precisely 
con-espond,  —  except  that  the  latter  word  more  distinctly  de- 
notes an  abstract  virtue,  though  the  notion  of  actual  poverty 
and  lowKness  is  never  foreign  to  it. 

The  Old  Testament  idea  culminated  in  the  conception  of  the 
meek  and  suffering  servant  of  Jehovah  —  primarily  denoting 
Israel,  and  typically  the  Messiah.  Jesus  exhibited  the  perfect 
fulfilment  of  this  prophetic  type.  The  lowliness  of  his  birth 
and  subsequent  position  in  society,  and  still  more  the  yoke 
of  service  which  he  voluntarily  assumed,  marked  him  as  one 
who  "  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to  minister,"  even 
to  the  giving  away  of  his  life  (Matt.  20  :  28 ;  Mark  10  :  45). 
It  is  remarkable  that  St.  Paul  alludes  to  no  other  personal  trait 
of  Jesus  but  this  alone,  beseeching  the  Corinthians  "by  the 
meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ "  (2  Cor,  10  : 1).  The  essen- 
tial note  of  Jesus'  manifestation  St.  Paul  sees  in  the  fact  that 
he  took  "the  form  of  a  servant."  It  is  characteristic  of  St. 
Paul  that  he  regarded  the  lowliness  of  mind  which  was  in 
Christ  Jesus  as  a  trait  which  was  exhibited  not  so  much  in  his 
human  life  as  in  his  Incarnation,  —  or  rather  in  the  whole  fact 
of  his  descent  from  the  right  hand  of  God  to  the  limit  of  human 
shame,  the  cross. 

Jesus  himself  called  attention  to  the  meekness  and  lowliness 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE   OF   ORDER   AND   CUSTOM  161 

of  heart  wMch  was  exhibited  in  his  own  person,  exhorting  his 
disciples  to  learn  this  trait  of  him  (Matt.  11  :  29).  He  also 
recognized  that  his  mission  in  the  world  was  especially  to  the  poor 
and  meek.  The  first  verses  of  the  61st  chapter  of  Isaiah  which 
he  read  in  the  Synagogue  at  Nazareth  were  selected  expressly 
as  the  program  of  his  Messianic  ministry  (Luke  4:16  sq.) : 

*'  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me, 
Because  he  appoiuted  me  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the  poor: 
He  hath  sent  me  to  proclaim  release  to  the  captives, 
And  recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind. 
To  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised, 
To  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord." 

In  the  literal  fulfilment  of  this  program  he  doubtless  found 
assurance  of  his  own  Messiahship,  and  to  the  disciples  of  Johu 
who  come  to  him  to  demand  if  he  be  indeed  the  Messiah,  he 
offers  this  as  the  proof  (Luke  7  :  18-23 ;  Matt.  11  :  2-6) :  "  Go 
your  way,  and  tell  John  what  thiugs  ye  have  seen  and  heard ; 
the  blind  receive  their  sight,  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are 
cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up,  the  poor  have 
good  tidings  preached  to  them."  It  would  seem  as  though  Jesus' 
message  of  comfort  and  good  tidings  was  addressed  to  the  poor 
almost  exclusively.  In  Luke  6  :  20-26  he  draws  a  formal  con- 
trast between  the  poor  and  the  rich :  "  Blessed  are  ye  poor :  for 
yours  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.  .  .  .  But  woe  unto  5^ou  that  are 
rich!  for  ye  have  received  your  consolation.  .  .  ,"  The  Beatitudes 
in  the  5th  chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  are  addressed  to  the 
poor  and  lowly  and  oppressed.  Verse  5  is  an  echo  of  the 
37th  Psalm,  "  Blessed  are  the  meek :  for  they  shall  inherit 
the  earth;"  and  the  very  point  of  this  Beatitude  lies  in  the 
fact  that  "  the  meek  "  signifies  those  who  are  actually  poor, 
whom  the  rich  have  expropriated.  But  it  is  no  less  important 
to  remark  the  turn  which  is  given  to  the  expression  in  verse  3 : 
"  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit."  Here  we  have  suggested  at 
least  the  possibility  that  the  spirit  of  humble  service  which  is 
natural  to  the  poor  may  be  acquired  —  though  it  be  with  diffi- 
culty —  by  others.  Hence,  despite  the  enormous  difficulty,  it 
is  possible  even  for  the  rich  to  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God 
(Matt.  19  :  24 ;  Mark  10  :  25  ;  Luke  18  :  25). 

11 


162  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [U 

This  word  of  Jesus  justifies  the  common  use  in  tne  epistles 
of  the  abstract  noun  "  meekness  "  —  Tr/aaur???.  Still  more  sig- 
nificant, perhaps,  is  the  other  abstract  term  raTruvoc^poavvr]  — 
"  lowliness  of  mind."  The  concrete  noun  raTretvo'i  denotes  one 
who  actually,  and  generally  of  necessity,  occupies  a  lowly  posi- 
tion :  the  abstract  noun  denotes  —  not,  to  be  sure,  a  lowly  opinion 
of  oneself  —  but  such  an  attitude  of  mind  as  corresponds  with 
the  position  of  humble  service  which  one  has  either  cheerfully 
accepted  or  willingly  assumed.  What  we  call  in  our  Com- 
munion Office  the  "  Comfortable  Words "  of  Jesus  were  ad- 
dressed expressly  to  those  "that  labor  and  are  heav;^"  laden" 
(Matt.  11  :  28-30).  In  themselves,  however,  labor  and  heavy 
laden  poverty  are  not  blessings,  they  become  such  only  as  they 
develop  an  aptness  trustfully  to  accept  Christ's  message  and 
faithfully  to  perform  his  service.  Furthermore,  it  is  only  by 
exchanging  one's  own  yoke  for  Christ's  —  the  heavy  burden 
of  selfish  service,  for  the  service  of  others  which  in  experience 
is  found  light  —  that  one  finds  rest  for  the  soid.  And  when 
Jesus  here  describes  himself  as  "meek  and  lowly  in  heart" 
(raTretvo'i  rrj  KapSia),  requiring  of  his  disciples  the  same  ethical 
character;  it  is  evident  that  he  means  a  disposition  of  mind 
which  may  be  thought  of,  and  may  exist,  apart  from  the  actual 
condition  of  poverty,  —  one  which  is  easy  for  the  poor  and 
difficult  for  the  rich,  yet  possible  for  all.  In  any  case,  as  an 
affair  of  the  heart,  it  must  be  a  glad  service  and  a  willing  one. 
As  a  trait  that  is  to  be  learned  from  Jesus  himself,  it  is 
manifestly  not  the  monkish  humilitas  which  is  the  expression 
of  the  consciousness  of  sin,  and  the  consequent  mean  opinion 
of  oneself. 

Here  we  have  the  conception  of  a  virtue  which  above  all 
others  is  effective  and  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  order 
and  conformity  in  the  Church ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
words  "meekness"  and  "lowliness  of  mind"  are  used  by  St. 
Paul  with  reference  especially  to  threatened  disorder  and  non- 
conformity, whether  in  the  individual  congi-egation  or  in  the 
Church  at  large.  In  Gal.  5  :  23  and  1  Tim.  6:11  the  word 
"  meekness  "  occurs  simply  in  a  list  of  the  principal  Christian 
virtues.     In  2  Tim.  2  :  25  and  1  Cor.  4  :  21  it  is  mentioned  as 


§11]  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  ORDER  AND  CUSTOM  163 

a  special  requisite  for  the  official  minister  ("  God's  servant "), 
and  it  was  plainly  an  indispensable  requisite  in  the  apostolic 
Church  where  obedience  had  to  be  conciliated,  for  lack  of  any 
law  to  enforce  it.  This,  however,  is  a  virtue  which  is  required 
no  less  in  the  ruled  than  in  the  rulers,  and  in  2  Cor.  10  : 1 
St.  Paul's  adjuration,  "by  the  meekness  and  gentleness  of 
Christ,"  introduces  his  long  and  earnest  plea  for  the  recognition 
of  his  apostolic  authority,  on  the  part  of  the  Church  at  Corinth 
particularly.  In  Col.  3  :  12-16  "  a  heart  of  compassion,  kind- 
ness, humility,  meekness,  longsuffering,  forbearing  one  another, 
and  forgiving  one  another,"  together  with  "  love  which  is  the 
bond  of  perfectness,"  is  associated  with  "  the  peace  of  Christ " 
to  which  all  "were  called  in  one  body."  In  Eph.  4: 1-16  we 
have  the  same  thought  more  definitely  and  fully  expressed. 
In  V.  2  "lowliness  of  mind  and  meekness,  longsuffering,  for- 
bearing one  another,"  are  mentioned  as  the  means  for  preserving 
the  imity  of  the  Church  {vv.  3-6)  —  "  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace,"  "  one  body,"  "  one  Spirit,"  "  one  hope  of  your 
calling,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father 
of  all."  And  in  the  closest  connection  with  this  the  organ- 
ization of  the  Church  is  considered  {vv.  7-16).  This  is  a 
charismatic  organizatioa,  —  "  to  each  one  of  us  gi-ace  was  given 
according  to  the  measure  of  the  gift  of  Christ.  .  .  .  And  some  he 
gave  to  be  apostles ;  and  some,  prophets ;  "  etc.  It  corresponds 
to  the  organic  constitution  of  the  human  body,  —  all  the  charis- 
mata minister  "  unto  the  building  up  of  the  body  of  Christ :  .  .  . 
that  we  may  grow  up  in  aU  things  unto  him,  which  is  the  head, 
Christ;  from  whom  the  whole  body  fitly  framed  and  knit 
together  by  that  which  every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the 
working  in  due  measure  of  each  several  part,  maketh  the  in- 
crease of  the  body  unto  the  building  up  of  itself  in  love." 

For  the  effectual  working  of  a  charismatic  organization  —  an 
organization  without  law  —  the  virtue  of  lowliness  and  meek- 
ness is  manifestly  indispensable  —  it  is  also  sufficient. 

But  the  most  remarkable  passage  is  Phil.  2  :1-11,  a  passage 
which  is  zealously  exploited  for  the  Christological  dogma  it 
contains,  without  much  reflecting  that  St.  Paul  here  adduces  the 
profoimdest  points  of  his  theology  for  the  mere  practical  pur- 


164  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  CHURCH  [II 

pose  of  settling  a  petty  faction  which  two  women  had  initiated 
in  the  Church  at  Philippi.  As  the  only  cure  for  faction  and 
vainglory,  the  disposition  of  each  to  regard  his  own  things  as  of 
preeminent  importance,  St.  Paul  exhorts  to  lowliness  of  mind 
(TaTr€ivo<f>poa-vv7]),  the  disposition  to  look  also  on  the  things  of 
others,  to  count  others  better  than  oneself.  Our  Lord  himself 
taught  that  this  disposition  was  to  be  learned  of  him,  and 
it  is  adequately  defined  only  as  it  is  exhibited  in  his  person. 
Hence  St.  Paul  goes  on  to  define  it  as  "  the  mind  which  was  in 
Christ  Jesus :  who,  being  in  the  form  o^  God,  counted  it  not 
a  thing  to  be  grasped  to  be  on  an  equality  with  God,  but 
emptied  himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being  made  in 
the  likeness  of  men;  and  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man, 
he  humbled  himself  even  unto  death,  yea,  the  death  of  the 
cross."  All  the  moral  force  of  this  great  dogma  the  apostle 
converges  in  one  practical  point,  and  directs  to  the  apparently 
incommensurate  aim  of  healing  a  petty  schism  in  the  con- 
gregation. 

If  the  example  of  Christ  —  the  fact  of  his  Incarnation,  the 
lowliness  of  his  human  life,  and  even  the  cross  itself  —  cannot 
beget  lowliness  of  mind  in  his  disciples ;  if  even  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  impotent  to  evoke  in  the  brotherhood  the  spirit  of 
fellowship  (koivcovlu — see  pp.  127  sq.);  or  if  meekness  when 
it  is  realized  proves  ineffectual  to  maintain  order,  conformity, 
and  peace  in  the  Church ;  what  other  and  stronger  motive  have 
we  to  rely  upon?  Can  fear  accomplish  in  the  Church  what 
love  cannot  do  ?  Force  and  law,  what  the  Holy  Ghost  cannot 
effect  ?  Of  course,  if  there  be  no  Holy  Ghost,  there  can  be  no 
spiritual  Ecclesia ;  and  without  the  meekness  of  love,  it  were 
as  well  that  the  Ecclesia  did  not  exist.  But  it  is  possible,  one  may 
say,  that  this  motive  may  be  active,  yet  inadequate ;  and  if  so, 
do  we  not  need  an  auxiliary  ?  At  all  events,  let  it  not  be  an  auxil- 
iary which  tends  to  weaken  the  force  of  this  prime  motive  — 
as  law  and  compulsion  must,  —  for  whatever  does  so  is  destruc- 
tive to  the  Ecclesia.  St.  Paul  knew  no  law  to  compel  peace. 
Therefore  he  relied  solely  upon  the  moral  appeal  (yv.  1-3)  :  "  If 
there  be  any  exhortation  (TrapaKXrja-i'i)  in  Christ,  if  any  incite- 
ment  of  love,  if  any  fellowship  (Kocvcovta,  see  p.  172)   of  the 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE    OF   ORDER   AND   CUSTOM  165 

Spirit,  if  any  bowels  and  compassions,  fulfil  ye  my  joy,  that  ye 
be  of  the  same  mind,  having  the  same  love,  being  of  one  accord, 
of  one  mind,  doing  nothing  through  faction  or  through  vain- 
glory, but  in  lowliness  of  mind  each  counting  other  better  than 
himself.  .  .  .Let  this  mind  be  in  you  which  was  also  in 
Christ   Jesus." 

The  scope  of  meekness  reaches  even  to  subjection 
to  law  —  unjust  or  unwarranted  law  though  it  be  — 
if  obedience  conduce  to  the  common  peace  and  profit. 
But  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  this  motive  upon 
which  we  rely  is  measurably  weakened,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  obstacles  which  it  has  to  overcome  are 
notably  heightened,  by  the  fact  that  the  end  which 
we  seek  to  attain  is  a  legalized  conformity.  If  we 
believe  that  conformity  can  be  attained  through  love, 
in  spite  of  obstacles  so  great;  why,  when  all  these 
obstacles  are  done  away,  may  it  not  also  be  maintained 
by  love  alone  ?  For  love  is  not  an  occasional  gift,  now 
to  burst  into  exercise,  and  then  to  "cease"  :  the  singu- 
lar excellence  of  love  as  the  pledge  of  order  and  con- 
formity in  the  Ecclesia  is  expressed  by  St.  Paul  in  the 
fact  that  —  unlike  the  charismata  properly  so  called, 
prophecy,  tongues,  etc.  — "  love  never  faileth." 

With  all  our  laws,  how  much  after  all  we  do  still  rely 
upon  the  sinrit  of  conformity  to  maintain  the  good 
order  of  the  Church.  Even  the  Roman  Church  has 
not  laws  precise  enough  to  cover  every  point  of  ecclesi- 
astical practice.  The  Anglican  Churches  may  appear 
to  regulate  the  conduct  of  public  worship  very  rigidly 
by  law,  but  to  many  it  would  be  surprising  to  learn 
how  much  is  actually  left  to  be  regulated  by  custom,  — 
especially  in  America.  Most  Protestant  denominations, 
on  the  other  hand,  have  no  law  whatsoever  for  the 
regulation  of  worship,   and  yet   adhere   to   traditional 


166  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [n 

usage  with  a  strictness  wliich  admits  of  less  variety 
than  is  found  in  the  so-called  liturgical  Churches.  The 
Anglican  Churches  exhibit  very  significantly  —  and  just 
now  very  deplorably  —  the  force  of  custom  prevailing 
contra  legem.  In  them  as  no  where  else  is  cherished  the 
ideal  of  acting  ever  upon  a  principle  fit  to  be  law  uni- 
versal for  the  Church.  The  ideal  is  a  right  one :  the 
Anglican  Churches  are  in  fact  only  so  many  denomina- 
tions ;  but  they  aspire  to  be  Churches,  and  to  act  upon 
no  law  which  is  not  Church  law,  ecumenical  law.  It  is 
this  aspiration,  and  no  spirit  of  faction  or  vainglory, 
which  prompts  the  disuse  of  all  denominational  titles 
in  favor  of  "  the  Church,"  and  justifies  the  qualification 
"  catholic,"  for  those  at  least  who  employ  it  in  the 
inclusive  rather  than  the  exclusive  sense.  Good  must 
ultimately  come  of  this  aspiration  for  a  universal 
Ecclesia,  but  at  present  the  ideal  is  faultily  applied 
when  it  leads  men  to  insist  upon  the  reintroduction  of 
strange  customs  because  they  once  tvere  universal.  Uni- 
versality in  time  past  is  not  an  absolute  criterion  for  the 
Church ;  if  it  were  so,  it  would  be  a  legal  criterion ; 
and  it  is  certainly  one  which,  in  view  of  the  history  of 
the  Church,  it  is  now  impossible  to  follow  Avithout  con- 
tradiction. The  spirit  of  meekness  and  love  might  well 
prompt  us  to  submit  to  customs  which  are  now  well 
nigh  universal  in  Christendom;  but  surely  not  at  the 
expense  of  offending  those  that  are  nearest  us  in  the 
Ecclesia.  The  ideal  here  contemplated,  as  at  present  it 
is  followed,  conduces  not  to  conformity  and  peace,  but 
to  unseemly  variety,  discord  and  disunion.  In  reality 
it  witnesses  to  the  ideal  necessity  of  an  Ecclesia  without 
law;  but  at  present  it  leads,  in  ways  which  are  neces- 
sarily vague  and  various,  to  the  pursuit  of  a  customary 
law.     For  it  is  only  as  medieval  custom  is  regarded  as  a 


§11]  SIGNIFICANCE  OF   ORDER  AND  CUSTOM  167 

divine  Icm  for  the  Church,  that  it  can  be  pressed  with 
such  rigorous  insistence,  in  contradiction  not  only  to 
the  present  practice  but  to  the  positive  law  of  the 
denomination  to  which  one  has  either  explicitly  or 
implicitly  pledged  obedience.  When  a  custom  is  re- 
garded —  however  ignorantly  —  as  justified  by  the  uni- 
versal practice  of  the  Church,  it  is  held  superior  to  all 
law.  Yet  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  have  no  customary  law, 
and  the  fact  here  cited  is  proof  that  law  is  not  the  only, 
nor  the  strongest,  influence  for  order  in  the  Church. 

Above  in  note  D,  which  I  have  quoted  from  Sohm, 
something  is  said,  but  not  enough,  about  St.  Paul's 
emphasis  upon  order  in  the  Church;  something,  too, 
but  not  explicitly  enough,  about  his  estimate  of  the 
authority  of  custom.  There  is  a  tendency  in  some 
quarters  to  take  a  mmimizing  view  of  the  influence 
St.  Paul  may  have  exerted  upon  the  order  and  organiza- 
tion of  the  Church,  representing  that  he  was  too  much 
preoccupied  with  purely  spiritual  and  doctrinal  concerns 
to  attend  to  affairs  of  outward  order.  But  this  rests 
upon  a  false  conception  of  the  man.  Of  course  we  get 
a  radically  different  conception  if  we  accept  as  genuine 
the  Pastoral  Epistles,  which  represent  the  apostle 
largely  if  not  predominantly  concerned  about  details 
of  order  and  organization.  Some  care  for  organiza- 
tion and  uniform  order  is  indicated  in  Acts  14 :  23, 
if  we  may  trust  the  account  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  in 
retracing  the  course  of  their  first  missionary  journey, 
"  appointed  presbyters  in  every  Church"  which  they 
had  founded.  But  for  the  matter  here  at  issue  we 
have  no  need  to  appeal  to  these  sources.  The  "  eye- 
witness" passages  of  the  Acts,  and  the  early  epistles, 
themselves  furnish  sufficient  evidence  of  the  practical 
sagacity  and  large  political  foresight  which  guided  the 


168  THE  IDEA  OF  THE   CHURCH  [II 

apostle  in  founding  his  Churches  and  in  maintaining 
their  individual  stability  and  mutual  concord.  Ramsay  ^ 
has  admirably  showed  that  St.  Paul's  missionary  founda- 
tions were  planned  with  a  breadth  of  view  which  re- 
flects the  "  Roman,"  the  citizen  of  the  Empire,  conscious 
of  the  imperial  ideal,  and  aspiring  after  an  ecumenical 
Ecclesia  in  which  even  the  necessary  diversities  of  race 
(Col.  3 :  11)  should  be  subordinate  to  a  larger  practical 
unity.  The  imperial  ideal  for  the  Ecclesia  did  not  im- 
ply the  legal  organization  of  the  whole  as  the  counter- 
part of  the  Empire,  nor  the  organization  of  the 
individual  congregations  in  terms  of  the  municipal 
government ;  but  it  implied  something  quite  as  practi- 
cal as  legal  organization,  the  accomplishment,  namely, 
of  three  closely  related  aims :  ready  and  frequent  inter- 
course, uninterrupted  fellowship,  and  substantial  simi- 
larity of  custom.  Men  seek  in  St.  Paul's  writings  for 
evidence  of  a  legal  organization,  and  because  they  do 
not  find  that,  they  are  prone  to  think  he  had  no  interest 
in  order  and  organization  of  any  sort,  and  that  the 
unity  he  demanded  was  not  a  practical  and  visible 
unity. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  epistles  to  the  Colos- 
sians  and  the  Ephesians  are  not  needed  to  prove  that 
St.  Paul  conceived  of  the  Ecclesia  as  one,  indivisible,  and 
universal.  The  very  idea  of  the  Ecclesia  involved  the 
imperial  ideal  of  unity  and  conformity,  as  much  as  it 
excluded  legal  means  for  the  attainment  of  this  end; 
and  no  one  could  cherish  this  ideal  without  seeking  to 
realize  it  in  every  practical  institution  of  Christian  life. 
It  is  intolerable  that  radically  different  customs  should 
obtain  in  the  Church  of  God,  —  still  more  that  through 

1  Ramsay,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  (1893),  and  St.  Paul  the 
Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen  (1895). 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE   OF   ORDER   AND   CUSTOM  169 

differences   of   custom   practical    fellowship   should   be 
interrupted. 

The  first  and  greatest  problem  St.  Paul  had  to  face, 
and  one  which  engaged  him  throughout  his  whole  min- 
istry, was  the  threatened  schism  between  the  Jewish 
and  the  Gentile  Christians.  He  pursued  his  aim  of 
reconciliation  with  no  less  zeal  in  the  latter  years  when 
it  involved  only  the  maintenance  of  practical  unity  be- 
tween the  two  great  and  well  established  sections  of  the 
Church,  than  in  the  beginning  when  the  very  existence 
of  his  mission  to  the  Gentiles  was  at  stake  and  the 
question  hung  in  the  balance  whether  the  Church  could 
transcend  the  limitations  of  a  national  religion  and  show 
itself  ^^f  to  be  universal.  He  pursued  this  aim  by  every 
means  in  his  power,  by  boldness  of  rebuke  where  essen- 
tial issues  were  at  stake,  by  meekness  of  concession 
where  compromise  was  admissible ;  and  by  the  power 
of  his  personality,  by  his  unquenchable  faith,  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  he  triumphed,  —  though  so  great  were 
the  obstacles  to  be  overcome  that  triumph  remained 
ever  on  the  verge  of  failure.^ 

In  this  case  considerable  diversity  of  custom  as  be- 

2  The  great  practical  agency  that  he  employed  to  cement  the  fellow- 
ship of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  was  the  "contribution  "(Koivavia  — 
-properly  fellowship)  which  he  repeatedly  collected  from  his  converts  in  aid 
of  the  saints  at  Jerusalem.  Hence  it  is  that  he  says  in  Rom.  15  :  30,  31, 
"  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  the 
love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive  together  with  me  in  your  prayers  to  God 
for  me ;  that  .  .  .  my  ministration  which  I  have  for  Jerusalem  may  be 
acceptable  to  the  saints."  And  in  2  Cor.  9  :  12-14,  "  For  the  ministration 
of  this  service  not  only  filleth  up  the  measure  of  the  wants  of  the  saints, 
but  aboundeth  also  through  many  thanksgivings  unto  God,  —  through 
the  proof  of  this  service  glorifying  God  for  the  subjection  of  your  con- 
fession unto  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  and  for  the  liberality  of  your  fellow- 
ship unto  them  and  unto  all ;  while  they  themselves  also,  with  supplication 
on  your  behalf,  long  after  you  by  reason  of  the  exceeding  grace  of  God 
in  you." 


170  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [H 

tween  Gentiles  and  Jews  had  to  be  tolerated ;  but  it  was 
not  properly  a  diversity  in  respect  to  Christian  custom; 
and  to  show  that  the  points  of  difference  were  at  bottom 
indifferent  to  the  faith,  St.  Paul  himself  lived  as  a  Jew 
with  the  Jews,  and  as  a  Greek  with  the  Greeks.  He 
made  a  clear  distinction  between  things  in  themselves 
essential,  and  things  in  themselves  indifferent ;  and  few 
men  have  been  more  liberal  in  reckoning  the  practices 
which  belong  to  the  latter  class.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
few  have  been  more  exacting  with  respect  to  indifferent 
things.  No  one  has  more  exalted  the  freedom  of  the 
Christian  man ;  but,  again,  no  one  has  so  clearly  recog- 
nized that  freedom  is  merely  an  ojii'portunity  for  duty. 

For  some  hundreds  of  years  we  have  emphasized 
Christian  individuality  and  freedom  at  the  expense  of 
the  solidarity  and  duty  which  are  no  less  essential  as- 
pects of  Christianity.  What  St.  Paul  gives  with  one 
hand  he  seems  to  take  away  with  the  other.  Where 
there  was  reason  to  fear  a  legalizing  tendency,  there 

I  Paul  emphasized  Christian  freedom.  But  freedom  is  no 
guide  for  the  conduct  of  life :  duty  is  the  guide  and 
freedom  is  its  sphere.  Considered  in  relation  to  society 
there  is  almost  no  action  that  remains  indifferent ;  all 
is  brought  into  subjection  to  the  moral  law,  and  either 
exacted  or  proscribed  by  the  law  of  love,  —  "for  con- 
science sake  —  conscience,  I  say,  not  thine  own,  but  the 
other's  "  (1  Cor.  10  :  29).  In  the  things  which  are  in- 
different in  themselves  St.  Paul  saw — just  because  they 
arc  indifferent  —  the  opportunity  for  concession,  the  duty 
of  conformity.  The  sphere  of  duty  is  coextensive  with 
the  sphere  of  freedom.  This  is  the  "yoke"  of  Christ; 
the  meek  yoke  which  Jesus  himself  bore,  and  imposed 
upon  his  disciples ;  a  yoke  which  appears  heavy,  but  is 
found  light  where  love  prompts  to  service.     It  is  the 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  ORDER  AND  CUSTOM  171 

yoke  which  St.  Paul  bore,  and  encouraged  all  Chris- 
tians to  bear  together :  "  Give  no  occasion  of  stumbling, 
either  to  Jews,  or  to  Greeks,  or  to  the  Church  of  God  : 
even  as  I  also  please  all  men  in  all  things,  not  seeking 
mine  own  profit,  but  the  profit  of  the  many,  that  they 
may  be  saved.  Be  ye  imitators  of  me,  even  as  I  also 
am  of  Christ."     (1  Cor.  10  :  32  sqq.) 

These  principles  which  St.  Paul  invoked  in  view  of 
the  threatened  division  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, he  applied  as  well  to  every  schism  which  men- 
aced the  peace  of  the  individual  congregation  or  of  the 
Church  at  large.  It  was  not  merely  heresy  he  was 
zealous  to  avoid  (the  propagation  of  "  a  different  Gos- 
pel," Gal.  1:6);  but  schism  pure  and  simple,  every 
practical  division  which  hindered  the  realization  of 
fellowship.^  Next  to  the  founding  of  his  numerous 
Churches,  St.  Paul's  greatest  task  was  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  unity  of  fellowship  —  consequently  the 
maintenance  of  conformity  and  order  —  within  and 
among  them.  Recounting  the  perils  he  had  endured, 
he  says  (2  Cor.  11  :  28) :  "  Beside  those  things  that  are 
without,  there  is  that  which  presseth  upon  me  daily, 
anxiety  for  all  the  Churches."  The  exhortations  of  his 
epistles  were  addressed  primarily,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
to  the  settlement  of  disorders  within  the  individual  con- 
gregations, but  even  this  was  subsidiary  to  the  larger 
aim  of  maintaining  a  concordant  order  among  all  the 
Churches  of  his  founding. 

3  Phil.  2  :  1-11;  4  :  2;  1  Cor.  1  :  10-13  :  3  :  3,  4.  If  the  divisions  at 
Corinth  were  not  fairly  in  the  spirit  of  our  modern  orthodox  denomina- 
tions, I  should  like  to  know  what  else  they  were.  St.  Paul  gives  no  hint 
of  a  specific  doctrinal  divergency,  but  only  of  a  practical  breach  of  Church 
unity,  a  spirit  which  was  sectarian  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word, 
being  expressed  in  the  aflfirmations  :  —  "I  am  of  Paul ;  and  I  of  ApoUos  ; 
and  I  of  Cephas  ;  and  I  of  Christ." 


172  THE  IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

The  epistle  which  contains  most  evidence  of  St.  Paul's 
carefulness  to  maintain  conformity  among  the  Churches 
is  1  Corinthians,  the  same  which  makes  so  much  of 
Christian  liberty,  and  is  occupied  more  than  any  other 
with  the  effort  to  resist  tendencies  towards  internal 
division.  The  abuse  of  Christian  liberty  would  evi- 
dently have  a  disintegrating  effect  in  both  spheres  alike, 
as  between  members  of  the  individual  Church,  and  as 
between  it  and  the  sister  Churches  of  the  same  or  other 
lands.  In  the  very  salutation  the  Corinthians  are 
taught  to  regard  themselves  as  united  "  with  all  that 
call  upon  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  every 
place  —  their  Lord  and  ours."  The  one  Lord  is  here  set 
forth  as  the  common  bond  of  union,  and  obedience  to 
him  as  Lord  is  the  uniting  law  of  life.  Then  in  verse  9, 
after  giving  thanks  for  those  gifts  of  theirs  which 
threatened  to  produce  disorder  and  jealousy  rather  than 
peace  and  edification,  he  returns  to  the  thought  of 
the  community  of  Christendom :  "  Faithful  is  the  God 
through  whom  ye  were  called  into  fellowship  of  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  —  fellowship  of  him,  not  only 
fellowship  loiih  him,  though  that  also,  but  fellowship 
with  one  another  and  with  all  the  saints,  derived  from 
that  fellowship  with  himself  which  was  common  to 
them  all.  It  is  of  course  not  the  grammatical  struc- 
ture which  here  decides  the  meaning,  but  the  common 
conception  of  "  fellowship  "  {kolvcovlo)  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,—cf.  Phil.  2:1.^ 

Having  put  before  the  Corinthians  this  fundamental 
teaching  at  the  beginning  of  the  epistle,  St.  Paul  re- 
peatedly afterwards  gives  it  a  practical  application  by 

*  This  and  the  two  following  paragraphs  are  taken  substantially 
from  Hort,  The  Christian  Ecclesia,  pp.  119  sq.  They  are  not  marked 
by  inverted  commas,  simply  because  I  desired  to  alter  slightly  the 
phraseology. 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE  OF   ORDER  AND   CUSTOM  173 

his  appeals  to  Christian  usage  elsewhere.  The  author- 
ities to  which  he  appeals  are  of  various  kinds,  e.  g. 
traditions  which  he  himself  had  received,  directly  or 
indirectly,  from  the  Lord ;  ^  or  his  own  judgment  of 
what  is  seemly  and  expedient,  which  he  expressly  dis- 
tinguishes from  a  command  of  the  Lord,  though  he  is 
confident  that  it  is  formed  agreeably  to  God's  Spirit ;  ^ 
or,  where  other  resorts  fail,  he  appeals  to  the  concord- 
ant practice  of  the  Churches.  Of  the  praying  of  women 
unveiled  he  says  (9  :  16),  "We  have  no  such  custom, 
neither  the  Churches  of  God."  Enjoining  order  in  the 
prophesyings  (or,  according  to  another  punctuation,  the 
silence  of  women  in  the  assemblies),  he  adds  (14  :  33), 
"  as  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  saints ; "  and  with  refer- 
ence to  the  speaking  of  women  he  asks  indignantly  {v. 
36),  "  Is  it  from  you  that  the  word  of  God  came  forth, 
or  is  it  unto  you  alone  that  it  reached  ? "  In  a  differ- 
ent and  calmer  tone  he  simply  seeks  for  a  precedent  for 
what  he  would  have  the  Corinthians  do  in  the  matter 
of  the  collection  for  Judea  (16  :  1) ;  "  as  I  directed  for 
the  Churches  of  Galatia,  so  do  ye  also."  For  a  much 
larger  matter  of  practice  and  principle,  the  remaining  of 
each  convert  in  the  relation  of  life  in  which  he  found 
himself,  he  urges  (7  :  17),  "and  so  I  direct  in  all  the 
Churches ; "  while  in  an  earlier  passage,  he  binds  up 
this  principle  of  community  with  the  obligations  created 
by  his  personal  relation  as  a  founder  (4  :  14-17),  bidding 
them  be  imitators  of  him,  as  their  true  father  in  respect 
of  their  new  life,  and  telling  them  that  he  sends  them 
in  Timothy  another  beloved  child  of  his,  "  who  shall  put 
you  in  mind  of  my  ways  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  as  I 
teach  everywhere  in  every  Church." 

5  1  Cor.  11 :  2,  23  ;  15  :  3  ;  cf.  Thess.  2  :  15;  3  :  6. 

6  1  Cor.  7 :  10,  12,  40. 


174  THE  IDEA   OF   THE  CHURCH  [II 

The  ideal  of  Church  unity  which  the  apostle  followed 
is  even  more  clearly  revealed  when  we  consider  the  prac- 
tical means  which  he  employed  to  attain  it.  What  he 
constantly  aimed  after  was  to  maintain  true  fellowship 
between  the  various  Churches,  by  encouraging  constant 
intercourse,  and  by  prompting  expressions  and  acts  of 
loving  sympathy.  It  is  in  view  of  these  efforts  we  are 
to  read  his  warm  thanksgivings  for  the  going  forth  of 
the  faith  and  love  of  this  or  that  Church  towards  other 
Churches,  so  as  to  be  known  and  to  bear  fruit  far  and 
wide.^  One  practical  result  of  friendly  intercommunion 
between  separate  Churches  —  and  one  of  the  greatest 
practical  means  towards  it  —  was  the  cultivation  of  hos- 
pitality, giving  the  assurance  that  Christians  who  had 
need  to  travel  would  find  temporary  home  and  welcome 
wherever  other  Christians  were  established.^  Again,  St. 
Paul  had  doubtless  a  deliberate  purpose  when  he  rejoiced 
to  convey  the  mutual  salutations  of  the  Churches ;  ^  when 
he  commended  Phoebe  to  the  Romans  as  one  who  had 
ministered  to  the  sister  Church  of  Cenchreae ;  ^°  gave 
order  for  the  exchange  of  epistles  of  his  addressed  to 
two  neighboring  Churches;"  and  made  this  or  that 
Church  a  sharer,  so  to  speak,  in  his  own  work  of 
founding  or  visiting  other  Churches,  by  allusions  to  his 
being  forwarded  by  them.^^  By  itself  each  of  these  de- 
tails may  seem  trivial  enough ;  but  together  they  help 
to  show  St.  Paul's  sense  of  the  unity  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  his  watchfulness  for  every  opportunity  of 

T  1  Thess.  1 :  7  sq. ;  4  :  9  sq.  ;  2  Thess.  1 :  3  sq. ;  2  Cor.  3:2;  Rom.  1:8; 
Col.  1 :  4. 

8  Cf.  Rom.  12  :  13 ;  1  Pet.  4:9;  Heb.  13  :  2 ;  3  John  5-8. 

9  1  Cor.  16 :  19 ;  Rom.  16  :  4,  16  ;  Phil.  4 :  22. 

10  Rom.  16  :  1,  2. 
"  Col.  4:  16. 

12  7rpon-e/x(|)^^fat  —  1  Cor.  16 :  6  ;  2  Cor.  1 :  16  ;  Rom.  15:  24. 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  ORDER  AND  CUSTOM  175 

kindling  and  keeping  alive  in  each  society  a  conscious- 
ness of  its  share  in  the  life  of  the  great  Ecclesia  of  God. 

St.  Paul's  exhortation,  "Let  all  things  be  done  de- 
cently and  in  order"  (1  Cor.  14  :  40),  had  not  solely 
in  view  the  convenient  regulation  of  the  assemblies  of 
the  individual  congregation ;  for  to  the  maxim  which  he 
enunciates  in  v.  33,  that  "  God  is  not  a  God  of  confu- 
sion, but  of  peace,"  he  adds  the  phrase,  "  as  in  all  the 
Churches  of  the  saints." 

The  most  significant  proof  of  St.  Paul's  concern  for 
external  order  —  and  all  the  more  significant  because 
the  matter  at  issue  is  in  itself  trivial  —  is  his  defence 
of  the  custom  of  the  veiling  of  women  in  the  Church 
(1  Cor.  11:2-16).  He  seems  to  class  this  with  — 
though  probably  not  among  —  "the  traditions"  (v.  2) 
which  he  had  delivered  to  the  Corinthian  Church.  In 
some  way  the  usage  had  become  established  in  the 
Church  —  in  contradiction  alike  to  Jewish  and  Ro- 
man practice  —  for  men  to  pray  and  prophesy  with 
uncovered  head,  and  on  this  point  there  seems  to  have 
arisen  no  controversy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  veiling 
of  women  in  the  Church  was  evidently  a  reflection 
of  the  social  custom  which  prevailed  in  the  Empire, 
and  it  is  therefore  the  more  strange  that  any  should 
be  found  to  dissent  from  it.  At  bottom  it  was  only 
by  appeal  to  the  universality  of  the  custom  that  a 
divergent  practice  could  be  condemned.  The  veiling 
of  the  head  was  purely  a  formal  matter,  and  St.  Paul's 
attempt  to  justify  it  upon  t-heological  grounds  is  in- 
conclusive where  it  is  not  unintelligible.^^  To  identify 
long  or  short  hair,  and  even  a  shorn  or  unshorn  head, 

13  vv.  7-10,  especially  the  conclusion,  "  For  this  cause  ought  the 
woman  to  have  a  sign  of  authority  upon  her  head,  because  of  the 
angels." 


176  THE  IDEA  OF   THE  CHURCH  [II 

with  the  use  or  disuse  of  a  head-covering  {vv.  5,  6)  is 
far-fetched ;  and  the  appeal  to  the  teaching  of  nature 
{vv.  14,  15)  only  proves  how  powerful  Was  the  force 
of  Graeco-Roman  custom,  if  a  Jew  like  St.  Paul,  bred 
in  the  strictest  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  could  so  ignore 
the  precedents  of  his  own  nation  as  to  believe  that  for 
a  man  to  wear  his  hair  long  was  in  the  very  nature 
of  the  case  to  dishonor  himself.  Likewise  the  appeal 
of  V.  13  has  no  other  force  than  that  of  an  argiimentimi 
ad  kominem  — "  Judge  ye  in  yourselves :  is  it  seemly 
that  a  woman  pray  unto  God  unveiled  ?"  St.  Paul  evi- 
dently felt  that  all  these  arguments  were  inconclusive : 
he  could  produce  no  commandment  of  the  Lord  upon 
the  subject;  he  could  claim  no  special  revelation,  no 
inward  assurance  that  what  he  desired  was  conformable 
to  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  might  therefore  be  enjoined 
by  apostolic  authority;  he  could  not  even  treat  the 
question  as  a  moral  issue,  as  though  a  breach  of  femi- 
nine modesty  was  necessarily  implied  in  appearing 
with  head  unveiled;  but  he  could  appeal  to  the  uni- 
versal custom  of  the  Church,  and  that  he  counted 
sufficient  to  settle  all  dispute  — "  But  if  any  man 
seemeth  to  be  contentious,  we  have  no  such  custom,  neither 
the  Churches  of  God''  {v.  16)." 

If  the  apostle  was  so  much  concerned  about  this 
matter,  what  question  of  external  order  could  have 
lain  outside  his  interest?  It  is  not,  indeed,  to  be  sup- 
posed that  he  had  a  doctrinaire  interest  in  devising 
beforehand  a  scheme  of  order  and  organization.    Rather 

1*  The  practice  has  been  maintained  to  this  day  simpbj  by  force  of 
custom,  and  it  prevails  even  where  secular  custom  no  longer  prescribes 
the  covering  of  the  head  outside  the  Church.  The  hat  or  bonnet,  how- 
ever, of  to-day  is  rather  an  arbitrary  substitute  for  the  veil  which  St. 
Paul  required,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  he  would  have  thought  it  a  seemly 
and  natural  symbol  of  woman's  subjection. 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE   OF   ORDER  AND   CUSTOM  177 

he  dealt  with  practical  cases  as  they  arose,  but  he 
settled  them  in  accordance  with  a  principle  —  if  not 
a  plan  —  which  was  calculated  to  affect  uniformity 
of  order  in  the  Church  at  large.  The  early  epistles, 
particularly  1  Corinthians,  are  sufficient  to  prove  St. 
Paul's  keen  interest  in  the  regulation  of  the  external 
order  of  the  Church.  But  the  epistles  furnish  hints 
of  only  a  small  minority  of  the  ordinances  which  the 
apostle  must  have  established  among  the  Churches 
of  his  foundation.  The  general  regulation  of  Christian 
life  and  worship  belonged  of  course  to  the  period  of 
his  sojourn  in  the  community;  it  was  only  with  the 
unforeseen  emergencies  he  dealt  in  his  epistles,  and  even 
m  such  cases  he  preferred  to  postpone  the  regulation 
of  details  till  such  time  as  he  might  revisit  the  congre- 
gation—  1  Cor.  11 :  34.  The  Pastoral  Epistles  display 
no  more  interest  in  the  regulation  of  external  order 
than  we  can  reasonably  attribute  to  St.  Paul ;  nor, 
considering  the  purpose  of  these  letters,  is  there  any 
thing  incongruous  in  the  proportion  of  attention  there 
devoted  to  such  subjects.^^ 

^^  If  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  not  genuine,  they  witness  at  least  to 
the  belief  that  St.  Paul  was  the  great  organizer  of  the  Church.  The 
prevalent  notion  that  matters  of  external  order  and  organization  were 
foreign  to  St.  Paul's  interest,  rests  upon  two  assumptions  which  hardly 
will  endm'e  to  be  candidly  stated.  The  apostle's  great  and  predominant 
interest  in  the  fundamental  questions  of  religion  and  morality  does  not 
raise  the  least  presumption  that  he  was  indifferent  to  matters  of  external 
order  and  the  many  practical  measures  which  are  valuable  only  as  a 
means  to  an  end.  Still  less  does  his  contention  for  Christian  fi-eedom 
in  face  of  the  exactions  of  the  Mosaic  law  —  even  if  it  be  taken  to  imply 
the  exclusion  of  ritual  law  of  all  sorts  from  the  Church  —  afford  the 
least  suggestion  that  the  apostle  was  disposed  to  ignore  the  practical 
advantages  of  uniform  order  and  oi'ganization.  —  It  has  been  shown 
that  universal  uniformity  of  custom  was  an  ideal  inherent  in  the  very 
notion  of  the  Church ;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  example  of 
the  Roman  Empire  and  the  influence  of  the  ideal  which  it  pursued,  con- 
tributed to  define  and  strengthen  the  Cliristian  ideal,  as  well  as  to  render 

12 


178  THE  IDEA  OF   THE   CHURCH  [H 

Catholicism  was  right  in  attributing  a  high  impor- 
tance to  the  universal  custom  of  the  Church.  It 
corresponds  to  St.  Paul's  practice,  and  to  the  very 
nature  of  the  Ecclesia,  that  the  custom  of  all  the 
Churches  should  be  regarded  as  a  norm  for  the  conduct 
of  each.  Let  the  fault  of  nonconformity  lie  where  it 
ixiay,  —  the  practical  difficulty  of  settling  this  question 

practicable  its  realization.  We  must  assume  that  St.  Paul  the  Roman 
citizen  was  influenced  by  the  imperial  ideal,  which  aimed  at  the  establish- 
ment of  a  uniform  civilization  for  the  whole  world  and  so  contemplated 
a  sphere  no  less  extensive  than  the  Church  was  called  upon  to  occupy. 
This  ideal  of  a  universal  empire  insuring  conformity  and  peace  was 
cherished  by  the  Church  long  after  the  imperial  order  had  actually 
passed  away.  The  "  Holy  Roman  Empire  "  was  regarded  as  the  counter- 
part of  the  holy  universal  Church ;  and  so  long  as  the  political  ideal  sur- 
vived, it  served  in  turn  to  confirm  the  catholic  aspiration  of  the  Church. 
The  modern  national  system  of  Europe  is  the  negation  of  this  political 
ideal,  and  the  national  Churches  are  the  negation  of  the  ecumenical 
Ecclesia.  The  unifying  ideal  of  to-day  is  that  of  Christian  civilization. 
Our  modern  civilization  has  not  been  wrought  by  martial  conquests,  nor 
is  it  expressed  by  unity  of  government  ;  but,  in  all  except  the  use  of 
a  universal  language,  it  covers  a  broader  sphere  and  represents  a  more 
substantial  unity  than  ever  Rome  was  able  to  compass.  Modern  civiliza- 
tion is  tending  towards  a  new  international  ideal,  which  aspii'es  no  longer 
after  a  common  law  and  government,  but  after  concordant  custom  and 
peace.  The  Church  cannot  remain  unaffected  by  an  ideal  which  is  so 
thoroughly  in  keeping  with  its  own  proper  aim.  This  ideal,  however, 
is  still  thwarted  by  the  prejudice  of  nationality  not  only,  but  also 
by  the  prejudice  of  race ;  and  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  latter 
is  no  less  opposed  than  the  former  to  the  universal  aim  of  the  Church. 
The  Anglo-Saxon  civilization,  for  example,  though  it  be  actually  more 
extensive  than  the  Roman  Empire,  can  never  be  more  than  a  partial  and 
exclusive  expression  of  human  culture,  and  is  therefore  no  apt  exponent 
of  the  universality  of  the  Ecclesia.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  regard  the  common  civilization  of  Europe  as  the  adequate 
expression  of  Christendom.  But  even  this  conception  is  not  large  and 
liberal  enough :  the  world  is  larger  for  us  than  it  was  for  St.  Paul,  and 
its  peoples  are  more  various ;  there  is  no  one  civilization  which  can  rightly 
be  regarded  as  the  indispensable  counterpart  of  Christendom,  and  the 
indiscriminating  attempt  to  fasten  upon  foreign  peoples  the  purely  in- 
different usages  of  our  civilization  is  at  present  the  fatality  of  all  mis- 
sionary endeavor. 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE   OF   ORDER  AND  CUSTOM  179 

must  not  be  allowed  to  obscure  the  fact  that  conformity 
is  the  rule  of  the  Ecclesia.  Marked  divergencies  of 
order  and  custom  are  intolerable,  because  they  discredit 
the  belief  in  the  divine  guidance  of  the  Church,  and 
hinder  the  realization  of  fellowship.^^  The  prevailing 
custom  of  the  Church,  whether  at  this  moment  or  at 
any  time  in  the  jDast,  must  possess  a  high  authority  — 
and  a  purely  objective  authority  —  for  any  one  who  is 
conscious  of  the  unity  of  the  Church's  life  in  Christ. 
This  may  be  affirmed  without  abating  by  one  jot  the 
rigor  of  Sohm's  denial  —  No  laio  m  the  Church.  For 
the  authority  of  custom  is  not  necessarily  a  legal 
authority. 

Kahl  ^"^  very  properly  makes  much  of  the  importance 
of  custom  as  the  expression  of  Christian  consciousness 
and  the  regulator  of  Church  life ;  but  he  errs  in  treat- 
ing custom  as  though  it  were  equivalent  to  customary 
law.  He  justly  recognizes  that  custom  has  even  a 
higher  authority  in  the  Church  than  in  civil  life, — 
and  a  unique  authority  at  that,  because  it  is  a  more 
direct  and  immediate  expression  of  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness than  any  formula  of  written  law  can  be. 
Custom  may  pass  by  unperceived  gradations  into  custo- 
mary law,  and  yet  the  two  ideas  are  entirely  distinct. 

^®  Take  any  Church  you  please,  and  by  the  very  admission  that  it  is  a 
Church  you  raise  the  presumption  that  the  order  which  it  maintains  is 
conformable  to  God's  will,  and  therefore  is  to  be  accepted  by  every  other 
Church.  This  at  least  is  the  early  view  :  it  must  be  admitted  that  nowa- 
days such  a  presumption  has  very  little  weight.  How  tlien,  if  we  justify 
the  diversities  of  sectarian  custom,  can  we  continue  to  believe  in  God's 
guidance  of  the  whole  Church,  —  except  by  premising  that  the  things 
in  which  we  differ  are  altogether  indifferent  to  his  will?  But  if  we  now 
so  regard  them,  we  can  no  longer  regard  them  as  questions  of  conscience. 
Why  then  should  we  not  yield  them  in  the  spirit  of  conformity  for  the 
sake  even  of  a  petty  practical  advantage?  —  for  that  at  least  is  involved. 

"  Lehrsystem  des  Kirchenrechts,  pp.  96  sq.,  129  sq. 


180  THE   IDEA   OF   THE   CHURCH  [II 

Custom  has  an  authority  of  its  own,  and  it  exacts  its 
own  natural  penalties  for  any  breach  of  the  common 
order ;  but  it  has  neither  formal  authority  nor  formal 
penalties,  and  it  can  become  a  legal  instance  only  by 
being  formally  recognized  as  such.  The  authority  of 
customary  or  unwritten  law  is  not  different  in  kind 
from  that  of  written  law,  only  it  is  less  sure  of  recog- 
nition. The  name  properly  denotes  not  so  much  the 
form  of  the  law  as  the  source  whence  the  matter  of 
its  precept  is  derived :  customary  laio  is  no  less  formal 
than  the  enactments  of  legislation.  However  elusive 
the  distinction  between  custom  and  customary  law  may 
be,  it  is  very  necessary  to  observe  it ;  and  while  recog- 
nizing to  the  full  the  inoral  obligation  of  conformity  to 
custom,  we  must  deny  to  custom  the  formal  authority 
of  prescriptive  law.  The  transition  from  primitive 
Christianity  to  Catholicism  is  explained  by  the  ignor- 
ing of  this  distinction :  hence  it  is  that  the  transition 
was  so  gradual,  so  unobserved,  and  is  now  so  difficult  to 
locate. 

Customary  law  was  the  only  law  possible  in  the  ear- 
liest period  of  Catholicism,  while  there  was  yet  no 
recognized  legislative  authority.  The  development  of 
provincial  synods  constituted  such  an  authorit}^  and  it 
was  then  but  a  short  step  from  the  recognition  of  the 
legal  authority  of  custom  to  legislative  enactment.  The 
early  canons  for  the  most  part  were  designed  merely  to 
formulate  and  affirm  customs  already  prevalent  in  the 
Church ;  nor  did  they  add  anything  to  the  authority  of 
customary  law,  since  the  function  of  the  synod  was 
merely  to  ascertain  what  doctrines  were  conformable  to 
the  truth  and  what  customs  were  agreeable  to  God's 
will.  But  from  the  first  the  tendency  was  to  supersede 
customary  law  by  canon  law ;  and  when,  with  the  pro- 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  ORDER   AND   CUSTOM  181 

gressive  development  of  Catholicism,  the  bishop,  council, 
or  pope  was  formally  recognized  as  a  legislative  author- 
ity jure  divino,  the  authority  of  custom  could  not  but 
seem  incomplete  until  it  was  confirmed  by  enactment. 
Consequently,  Catholicism,  which  seemed  peculiarly  fa- 
vorable to  the  development  of  customary  law  on  a  great 
scale,  has  actually  tended  to  exclude  it.  The  Corpus  ju- 
ris canonici — particularly  Distinctions  I.,  XI.  and  XII. 
of  the  Decretum  Gratiani,  and  lib.  I.  tit.  1  of  the  Extrava- 
(jantes  communes  —  gives  some  idea  of  the  force  of  custo- 
mary law  in  the  Church.  But  now  that  the  minutest 
details  are  ordered  by  enactment,  the  operation  of  cus- 
tomary law  is  confined  to  the  narrowest  sphere  —  chiefly 
to  privileges  and  exceptions.  This  is  the  logical  devel- 
opment of  a  system  which  make  all  authority  emanate 
from  the  hierarchy. 

Kahl  justly  remarks  that  the  Protestant  Churches 
actually  leave  a  greater  scope  for  the  operation  of  cus- 
tomary law,  though  the  lack  of  a  consciousness  of  unity 
is  unfavorable  to  its  development.  But  it  is  entirely 
futile  for  Kahl  to  contend  that  the  customary  law  of 
the  Protestant  Churches  constitutes  a  type  of  law  which 
is  in  harmony  with  the  idea  of  the  Church  and  defensi- 
ble against  Sohm's  attack  upon  law  in  general,  for  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  Protestant  Churches  have  no  custo- 
mary law.  Customs  have,  indeed,  by  enactment  become 
laws,  and  sometimes  by  a  decree  so  general  that  it  may 
seem  like  a  legitimation  of  customary  authority;  but 
the  tendency  of  Protestantism  has  been  to  disparage 
customary  law,  and  it  has  succeeded  in  excluding  it 
more  absolutely  than  Romanism  has  been  able  to  do. 
This  is  in  the  interest,  not  indeed  of  a  hierarchy,  but  of 
the  regularly  constituted  legislative  authority,  of  what- 
ever sort  it  may  be.     It  reflects  the  influence  of  the 


182  THE   IDEA   OF  THE   CHURCH  [II 

modern  civil  ideal,  and  the  modern  practice  of  confin- 
ing customary  law  to  one  source,  and  that  not  a  popu- 
lar one ;  namely,  the  decisions  of  the  judiciary.  Law  of 
this  sort  is  manifestly  ill  adapted  to  the  Protestant 
Churches,  with  their  impromptu  courts,  organized  occa- 
sionally to  deal  with  special  cases  of  discipline.  Follow- 
ing again  the  pattern  of  the  state,  all  the  Protestant 
Churches  of  America  have  formulated  written  constitu- 
tions and  hfj-laws  for  the  regulation  of  the  more  import- 
ant matters  of  Church  order.  And  if  they  have  not 
been  inclined  to  imitate  the  zeal  of  our  civil  legislatures 
for  enacting  laws  to  cover  every  case  that  may  conceiv- 
ably arise  (a  practice  which  is  intended  to  reduce  as  far 
as  possible  the  legislative  importance  of  judicial  deci- 
sions)-; and  if  thus  they  have  actually  left  a  broad 
sphere  free  for  the  operation  of  customary  law,  they 
nevertheless  have  no  law  of  this  sort.^^ 

This  is  not  to  say  that  custom  has  no  influence  in  the 
Protestant  Churches,  but  only  that  it  has  no  legal  au- 
thority. Custom  is  inherently  a  social  power,  independ- 
ent of  all  reflection  upon  the  character  of  its  authority. 
Because  so  great  a  sphere  is  open  to  its  operation,  and 
because  it  is  not  regarded  as  law,  it  is  possible  to  hope 
that  conformity  of  order  in  the  Ecclesia  may  be  wrought 

18  In  its  relation  to  written  law,  custom  is  commonly  distinguished 
as  secundum,  praeter,  and  contra  legem.  In  the  Protestant  Churches  no 
custom  is  allowed  to  derogate  from  the  enactments  of  legislative  author- 
ity :  that  is  to  say,  custom  can  have  no  authority  contra  legem.  Of  custom 
secundum  legem  it  is  unnecessary  to  speak ;  for  great  as  its  practical  force 
may  be,  it  has  no  legal  effect.  Custom  praeter  legem  —  the  custom  that 
serves  as  a  complement  to  written  law,  operating  in  a  field  which  law  has 
left  free  —  is  the  only  category  that  it  is  important  to  consider ;  and  even 
such  custom,  so  far  as  it  is  recognized  at  all  in  the  Protestant  Churches, 
is  never  accorded  the  authority  of  prescriptive  law,  but  at  the  most  the 
force  of  permissive  right  or  privilege.  It  has  proper  legal  authority  only 
in  one  case ;  namely,  where  it  must  be  relied  upon  to  intex-pret  the  inten- 
tion of  an  ambiguous  enactment. 


§  11]  SIGNIFICANCE  OF   ORDER  AND  CUSTOM  183 

through  custom.  No  one  who  has  noted  the  fluidity 
of  custom  in  our  Churches,  who  has  reflected  upon  the 
changes  that  have  come  about  unobserved  during  the 
past  few  decades,  and  has  seen  how  broadly  public  opin- 
ion operates  m  defiance  of  denominational  lines,  can  al- 
together lose  hope  that  the  consciousness  of  the  unity  of 
the  Church  of  God,  and  the  spirit  of  brotherly  love  and 
meekness,  may  be  able  to  effect  at  no  far  date  a  sub- 
stantial conformity  of  order  which  no  force  of  law  can 
exact  —  nor  impede. 


CHAPTER    III 
THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION 

§  12,   OF   CHUKCH   ASSEMBLIES   IN   GENERAL 

SOCIAL  assembly  is  a  natural  and  necessary  ex- 
pression of  the  Christian  life.  It  is  true  of  course 
that  other  religions  require  popular  assembly,  either  for 
participation  in  public  pomps  and  ceremonies,  or  for 
instruction  in  morality  and  religion ;  but  there  is  no 
i  religion  to  which  the  idea  of  social  assembly  is  so 
1  essential  as  it  is  to  Christianity.  Christianity  has 
reasons  for  assembly  which  lie  deeper  than  the  above, 
reasons  that  are  expressed  in  the  notion  of  brother- 
hood, and  implied  in  the  very  idea  of  the  Church. 
This  peculiarity  of  the  Church  is  strikingly  exemplified 
in  the  character  of  its  architecture :  the  pagan  temple 
was  designed  as  a  house  for  the  deity ;  the  Christian 
house  of  worship  is  designed  primarily  as  a  house  for 
the  people  of  God,  who  themselves,  as  an  assembly,  con- 
stitute the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Three,  or  even 
two  disciples,  may  constitute  a  Church  ;  but  one  cannot. 
And  though  the  smallest  number  suffices  to  fulfil  the 
essential  conditions,  the  spirit  of  Christian  brotherhood 
is  not  satisfied  with  less  than  the  fullest  assembly  that 
opportunity  permits,  the  completest  social  expression 
of  the  neighborhood  or  community.  Social  assembly  is 
thus  essential  to  Christianity,  and  nothing  could  be 
further  from  its  ideal  than  the  unsocial  practice  of  the 


§12]  OF   CHURCH   ASSEMBLIES   IN   GENERAL  185 

ascetic  hermits,  or  of  those  who  nowadays,  without  as- 
ceticism, abstain  from  church-going. 

If  we  raise  the  question.  Why  should  we  assemble  in 
the  Church  ?  the  completest  answer  is,  In  order  that  we 
may  he  together.  Modern  Christianity  has  obscured  the 
reasons  for  church-going,  inasmuch  as  it  regards  the 
assembly  as  existing  solely  or  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of 
religious  worship  or  scholastic  instruction.  When  the 
social  elements  of  the  assembly  are  suppressed,  and  the 
prime  fact  is  obscured  that  there  in  a  peculiar  manner 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  present,  heightening  all  the 
potentialities  of  Christian  life ;  then  it  becomes  natu- 
ral to  raise  the  question,  May  not  the  offices  of  Chris- 
tian worship  be  as  duly  performed  in  the  closet,  and 
Christian  doctrine  be  better  learned  from  books  ?  — 
and  it  is  often  necessary  to  answer  such  a  questiou 
in  the  affirmative.  The  difficulty  is  that  Christianity 
emphasizes  strongly  both  aspects  of  religious  life,  the 
individual  and  the  social ;  and  where  both  are  not 
strongly  conceived  there  is  a  tendency  to  one-sided  de- 
velopment. The  tendency  to  neglect  the  social  duty 
and  privilege  was  manifested  from  the  beginning,  and 
hence  the  need  of  the  exhortation  in  Heb.  10  :  25,  — 
"  not  forsaking  the  assembling  of  ourselves  together,  as 
the  custom  of  some  is."  But  there  is  no  reason  what- 
ever to  suppose  that  this  tendency  was  general,  or  even 
so  common  as  it  is  to-day.  The  fundamental  reasons 
for  gathering  together  were  well  understood  in  the 
early  Church,  and  clearly  expressed  in  the  nature  of 
the  Christian  assembly.  This  very  exhortation  stands 
in  a  context  which  correctly  indicates  the  motive  of 
the  Christian  assembly,  and  essentially  describes  its 
character :  "  Let  us  consider  one  another  to  provoke 
unto  love  and  good  works;  not  forsaking  the  assem- 


186  THE  ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [IH 

bling  of  ourselves  together,  as  the  custom  of  some  is, 
but  exhorting  one  another." 

When  we  speak  of  the  Christian  assembly  we  are 
apt  to  think  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  of  a  religious 
cult  —  what  we  are  accustomed  to  term  "divine  ser- 
vice." But  the  name  assembly  is  the  better  one :  it 
emphasizes  the  social  significance  of  the  gathering, 
and  is  broad  enough  to  cover  the  many  diverse  func- 
tions which  were  performed  by  the  Christian  brother- 
hood ev  eKKkrjo-ia.  Divine  service  in  the  specific  sense 
was  never  the  prime  reason  for  the  assembly,  and  it 
often  formed  no  feature  of  it  at  all.  No  assembly 
was  held  for  the  sole  purpose  of  tuorship  ;  and  what  was 
done  in  the  assembly  was  done  not  so  much  to  influence 
the  deity,  as  to  confirm  the  faith  of  the  brotherhood. 
The  agape  or  love-feast  was  an  assembly  whose  chief 
object  was  to  express  Christian  fellowship ;  and  the 
same  purpose  was  predominant  in  the  Lord's  Supper: 
it  exhibited  Christian  fellowship  in  its  deepest  terms, 
as  communion  in  Christ ;  and  it  required  as  of  necessity 
no  element  of  worship  besides  the  prayer  of  thanks- 
giving.^ The  Christian  assembly  for  instruction  had 
its  nearest  analogy  in  the  Synagogue  ;  but,  again,  it  was 
more  fundamentally  social  in  character.  The  Synagogue 
had  as  its  particular  possession  the  Law,  the  interpreta- 
tion of  which  was  the  chief  purpose  of  the  assembly 
and  the  common  concern  of  all  the  members  ;  the  great 

1  There  was  no  point  upon  which  the  Protestant  Churches  were  in  the 
beginning  more  thoroughly  agreed  than  in  restoring  the  act  of  Com- 
munion as  an  inseparable  —  and  indeed  as  the  principal  —  feature  of  the 
Eucharist.  They  were  justified  in  this  by  Catholic  as  well  as  by  primi- 
tive practice,  though  the  fact  that  the  rite  was  regarded  by  early 
Catholicism  chiefly  as  an  act  of  cultus,  designed  to  aifect  the  deity,  ex- 
plains the  subsequent  development  of  the  medieval  practice  of  private 
and  solitary  masses. 


§  12]  OF   CHURCH   ASSEMBLIES   IN   GENERAL  187 

and  distinctive  possession  of  the  Church  was  Jesus  the 
Christ,  and  the  common  aim  of  the  members  in  every 
assembly  —  particularly  in  that  for  instruction  —  was 
the  mutual  encouragement  and  confirmation  of  the 
faith  that  is  in  him.  What  was  there  done  was  done 
for  common  benefit  and  mutual  edification  (1  Cor.  14  : 
26),  and  what  did  not  serve  this  purpose  was  rele- 
gated to  private  use  {v.  28).  Even  the  elements  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  account  a  part  of  worship  in  the 
most  exclusive  sense  were  there  valued  principally  as 
tending  to  edification.^ 

Faith  in  Christ  is  a  possession  so  characteristic  of  the 
Church,  and  a  motive  which  moulds  so  powerfully  the 
conduct  of  the  Christian  assembly,  that  it  is  useless  to 
look  abroad,  to  the  Synagogue  or  to  pagan  cults,  for  an 
historical  pattern  of  the  Christian  worship  —  for  wor- 
ship we  may  properly  call  it,  if  we  understand  the  word 
in  its  broadest  sense.  Moreover,  the  character  of  the 
Christian  assemblies  remained  essentially  the  same 
throughout  the  entire  period  covered  by  the  New  Tes- 
tament writings,  and  Weizsacker  admits^  that  in  this 
respect  there  was  hardly  a  noticeable  difference  between 
the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  Churches.  The  early  Church 
in  Jerusalem  was  not  in  a  position  to  develop  a  cult  of 
its  own ;  for  the  Christians  still  continued  to  frequent 
the  Temple,  —  however  they  may  have  been  inclined 
to  regard  some  particulars  of  the  Temple-service. 
Hence  what  was  left  for  the  Christian  assembly  was 

2  1  Cor.  14  :  26,  "  When  ye  come  together  each  one  hath  a  psalm,  hath 
a  teaching,  hath  a  revelation,  hath  a  tongue,  hath  an  interpretation  —  let 
all  things  be  done  unto  edifying."  Col.  3  :  16  (cf.  Ephes.  5  :  19)  ''teach- 
ing and  admonishing  one  another  with  psalms,  hymns,  spiritual  songs,  with 
grace;  singiwg  in  your  hearts  unto  God."  Modern  hymnology  generally 
conforms  to  this  ideal  —  in  spite  of  our  modern  theory  of  worship. 

^  Ajwst.  Zeitalter,  p.  510. 


188  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

chiefly  the  exhibition  and  confirmation  of  its  unique 
possession  in  the  Christian  faith.  The  faith  was  con- 
firmed by  all  the  tokens  of  God's  presence  in  the 
Church :  by  the  exercise  of  spiritual  gifts  and  by 
prayer  —  the  answer  to  prayer*  being  regarded  as  the 
fulfilment  of  Christian  joy  and  confidence  (John  16  :  24). 
To  the  same  position  the  Gentile  Christians  were  brought 
by  an  opposite  way.  For  them  the  new  faith  stood  in 
the  most  express  contrast  to  their  former  religion,  and 
hence  to  the  whole  character  of  its  cult,  the  essential 
feature  of  which  was  the  eifort  to  influence  the  deity 
by  sacrifice.  What  remained  for  them  therefore  (as  in 
the  other  case)  was  nothing  else  than  the  confirmation 
of  their  common  faith,  in  brotherly  fellowship.^ 

In  Rom.  12  :  1,  St.  Paul  characterizes  divine  service 
in  the  Christian  sense  by  the  expression  XoyiKrj  karpeia. 
This  is  not  the  same  as  Xarpeia  TrvevixaTiKiq  ;  the  Apostle 
is  not  here  concerned  to  affirm  that  this  service  is  offered 
in  the  strength  of  God's  Spirit ;  but  he  would  say  this, 
that  the  Christian  service,  in  distinction  from  all  sacri- 
ficial cults,  is  rendered  in  one's  own  person,  and  is 
directed  by  intelligent  thought,  by  right  reason.  The 
"  reasonable  service  "  of  the  Christian  is  contrasted  on 
the  one  hand  with  the  unintelligible  expression  of  spir- 
itual gifts  (1  Cor.  14  :  19),  as  much  as  with  the  unspir- 
itual  cults  of  Paganism  on  the  other  (Phil.  3:3).  In 
the  same  way  St.  Paul  employs  the  notion  of  XeLTovpyelu 
(to  minister)  in  an  ethical  sense,^  thus  restoring  to  its 
original  meaning  a  word  which  the  Septuagint  had 
used  in  a  strictly  ritual  sense  in  reference  to  the  Temple- 

4  Matt.  18:19;  21:22. 

6  Weizsiicker,  op.  cit.  p.  547. 

•  AftTovpyelv,  to  minister  as  a  priest,  Rom.  15  :  27;  "Keirovpyla,  priestly 
service,  2  Cor.  9  :  12 ;  Phil.  2 :  17,  30 ;  Xarovpyos,  ministrant,  Rom.  15  :  16 ; 
Phil.  2  :  25. 


§  12]  OF   CHURCH   ASSEMBLIES  IN   GENERAL  189 

service.  It  is  only  in  this  sense,  therefore,  that  the 
Christian  assembly  can  be  regarded  as  an  assembly 
for  religious  cult  or  worship.^ 

The  character  of  the  Christian  assembly  defines  the 
nature  and  functions  of  the  Christian  ministry.  The 
officers  of  the  Church  became  officers  in  a  strict  sense 
only  as  they  received  recognition  as  such  in  the  assem- 
bly. The  endowments  which  fitted  them  for  minis- 
try did  not  constitute  them  officers :  some  distinctive 
spiritual  gifts  —  as  the  gift  of  tongues  —  never  devel- 
oped corresponding  offices ;  and  although  the  most 
important  ministrations  of  some  of  the  officers  lay  out- 
side the  assembly,  it  was  the  character  of  the  assembly 
itself  and  of  the  worship  which  was  there  conducted  that 
determined  their  official  status.  No  officer,  moreover, 
can  be  thought  of  as  acting  officially  apart  from  the 
assembly.  Offices  and  officers  are  not  essential  to  the 
Ecclesia,  though  spiritual  endowments  and  spiritually 
endowed  persons  are.  The  endowments  are  given  by 
God ;  the  offices  are  more  or  less  strictly  defined  by  the 
character  of  the  Christian  assembly ;  and  the  officers 
are  constituted  by  the  popular  recognition  of  the  appro- 
priate endowments  in  particular  persons.  Offices  and 
officers  were  early  developed  in  the  Church,  but  so  long 
as  a  formal  and  final  legitimation  was  wanting  —  that  is, 
until  the  Catholic  development  —  we  miss  something  of 
the  definiteness  that  we  are  accustomed  to  associate 
with  these  conceptions. 

The  above  is  true  both  for  the  early  period  when  the 
assemblies  for  instruction  and  for  the  Eucharist  were  dis- 
tinct, and  for  the  Catholic  period  when  they  were  united. 
Plainly,  therefore,  some  account  of  the  Christian  assem- 
blies is  necessary,  if  we  would  understand  the  nature  of 

''  Weizsacker,  op.  cit.  p.  548, 


190  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [ill 

Church  government  in  general  and  the  character  of  the 
ministry  in  particular.  I  had  planned  to  include  in  this 
work  a  general  discussion  of  the  principles  of  Christian 
worship,  and  a  full  account  of  the  forms  of  worship 
which  were  developed  during  the  first  three  centuries, 
- —  meaning  to  treat  this  subject  as  coordinate  with  the 
study  of  Church  government,  which  the  exigencies  of 
space  ultimately  compelled  me  to  adopt  as  the  sole 
theme  of  this  volume.  I  hope  to  treat  of  Christian 
worship  later  and  in  a  separate  work,  and  here  it  must 
suffice  to  give  only  such  a  brief  account  as  is  clearly 
subordinate  to  the  purpose  in  hand.  This  statement 
is  made  by  way  of  apology,  in  case  some  of  the  propo- 
sitions here  enunciated  seem  to  be  supported  by  less 
proof  than  they  require. 

Any  assembly  of  Christians  was  competent  to  trans- 
act any  business  or  perform  any  functions  belonging 
to  the  Ecclesia.  There  was  nothing  in  the  nature  of 
the  case  to  prevent  all  being  done  in  the  same  as- 
sembly :  the  functions  of  discipline,  administration, 
and  government,  as  well  as  the  offices  of  instruction 
and  worship,  and  the  celebration  of  the  sacraments, 
might  all  have  been  performed  at  the  same  time  and 
place.  There  were  also  no  assemblies  which  were  not 
popular  assemblies,  —  assemblies  of  the  people  of  God 
as  such.  We  must  be  on  our  guard,  therefore,  not  to 
import  into  the  early  age  the  hard  and  fast  distinctions 
we  are  accustomed  to  draw  between  assemblies  for  wor- 
ship and  instruction,  committees  of  administration,  con- 
gresses of  government,  and  courts  of  discipline. 

But  on  the  other  hand  there  seems  to  have  been  one 
distinction  in  the  early  Church  which  we  have  in  a 
large  measure  lost.  We  cannot  well  conceive  that 
room  could  be  found  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  such  as  it 


§  12]  OF   CHURCH  ASSEMBLIES   IN   GENERAL  191 

is  described  in  1  Cor.  11,  in  connection  with  the  assem- 
bly for  instruction  and  the  great  variety  of  edifying- 
exercises  that  are  recounted  in  c  .  14.  Thougli  the  text 
does  not  expressly  distinguish  two  sorts  of  assembly 
held  for  different  objects  and  at  different  times,  we 
may  fairly  assume  such  a  distinction.  St.  Paul  im- 
plies it  when  he  says  (1  Cor.  11 :  33),  '*^  when  ye  come 
together  to  eat,"  eU  to  (ftayelu,  —  he  could  not  use  such 
an  expression  unless  the  meal  were  the  sole  object  of 
the  assembly.  In  1  Cor.  14 :  26,  he  uses  a  correspond- 
ing expression  to  indicate  the  assembly  for  instruction 

—  "  when  ye  come  together,  each  one  hath  a  psalm,  a 
teaching,  etc.  —  let  all  serve  to  edification."  In  all  of 
these  various  yet  similar  items  the  nature  of  the  assem- 
bly is  exhaustively  expressed.  The  distinction  between 
the  two  assemblies  is  further  indicated  by  the  fact  that 
one  of  them  was  open  to  unbelievers  ( 1  Cor.  14  :  23-25) 

—  which  certainly  does  not  comport  with  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Mention  is  made  also  in  these  verses  of  an 
ISlmtt]<;  as  having  access  to  the  assembly :  he  is  here 
classed  with  the  unbeliever,  but  in  v.  16  it  is  implied 
that  he  has  a  definite  place  assigned  him  in  the  con- 
gregation, and  is  accustomed  to  join  in  "the  Amen" 
of  the  brethren.  In  the  latter  instance  he  seems  to  be 
in  intimate  relations  with  the  assembly,  while  in  the 
former  he  is  assumed  to  occupy  a  detached  and  possibly 
a  critical  attitude.  This  does  not  appear  to  suit  the 
case  of  a  Christian  who  merely  for  lack  of  distinctive 
spiritual  gifts  remains  a  passive  participant  in  the 
doings  of  the  assembly.  It  is  more  likely  that  the 
word  denotes  the  catechumen  of  later  Church  disci- 
pline, —  one  who  is  a  regular  attendant  at  the  assem- 
blies as  a  part  of  his  instruction  in  the  faith,  but  is  not 
yet  baptized.     At  any  rate,  the  presence  of  other  men 


192  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

who  were  distinctly  non-Christian,  but  upon  whom  the 
rational  discourse  of  the  prophets  was  expected  to  exert 
a  profound  moral  effect,  implies  that  the  assembly  had 
in  part  a  missionary  aim.  To  suppose  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  took  place  in  this  assembly,  would  oblige  us  to 
assume  that  some  of  the  participants  in  the  mission- 
ary part  of  the  meeting  were  dismissed  prior  to  the 
Eucharist  —  which  will  hardly  do  in  view  of  11:33. 
Neither  the  unbelievers  nor  the  "  unenlis-htened "  — 
to  use  a  later  term  —  could  possibly  share  in  the  feast, 
and  one  may  be  sure  that  there  were  no  mere  observers 
present. 

Both  sorts  of  assembly  could  take  place,  of  course, 
upon  the  same  day.  Into  the  intricate  question  of  the 
hours  of  service  it  is  not  necessary  for  our  present  pur- 
pose to  enter.  But  it  emerges  with  sufficient  clearness 
that  certain  days  were  regularly  observed  as  days  of  as- 
sembly. This  may  be  inferred  from  the  mere  fact  that 
the  assembly  was  regarded  as  something  especial  —  not 
of  e very-day  occurrence.  In  Rev.  1  :  10  the  Lord's  Day 
is  designated  not  only  as  the  occasion  of  the  vision,  but 
evidently  also  as  the  day  for  divine  service.  When 
therefore  in  1  Cor.  16  :  2  St.  Paul  exhorts  the  disciples 
to  lay  by  in  store  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  their 
contributions  for  the  saints,  the  likelihood  is  that  this 
was  done  in  the  assembly.  It  was  evidently  not  the 
keeping  of  a  private  mite-box  the  apostle  enjoined,  if 
it  was  to  fulfil  the  purpose  that  he  expresses  —  "  that 
no  collections  be  made  when  I  come."  Thus  the  obser- 
vance of  Sunday  as  the  principal  day  of  assembly  is 
clearly  enough  established  as  the  custom  of  both  Jew- 
ish and  Gentile  Christians  in  the  early  part  of  the 
Apostolic  Age.  We  have  also  good  grounds  for  the  con- 
jecture that  it  was  particularly  the  day  for  the  Eucha- 


§  12]  OF   CHURCH   ASSEMBLIES  IN   GENERAL  193 

ristic  assembly  —  as  it  certainly  was  early  in  the  second 
century.^  And  it  is  not  improbable  that  Wednesday 
and  Friday  were  already  distinguished  as  minor  days  of 
assembly,  or  at  least  as  special  fast  days. 

Very  early  in  the  second  century  the  letter  of  Pliny 
to  the  Emperor  Trajan  describing  the  customs  of  the 
Christians  in  Bithynia  seems  to  indicate  that  the  Eu- 
charist was  still  separate  from  the  assembly  for  instruc- 
tion, though  both  were  held  upon  the  same  day.^  By 
the  middle  of  that  century,  as  we  see  from  Justin  Mar- 
tyr's account,  the  Eucharist  and  instruction  were  com- 
monly united  in  the  one  assembly  on  the  morning  of  the 
Lord's  Day.     This  union  is  reflected  of  course  in  all  the 

*  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  xiv.  1. 

9  Pliny  says  that  under  judicial  investigation  the  Christians  confessed 
as  the  sum  of  their  fault  or  error,  quod  essent  soliti  stato  die  ante  luceni 
convenire  carmenque  Christo  quasi  deo  dicere  secuni  iuvicem,  seque 
Sacramento  non  in  scelus  aliquod  obstringere,  sed  ne  furta,  ne  latrocinia, 
ne  adulteria  committerent,  ne  fidem  fallerent,  ne  depositum  appellati 
abnegarent;  quibus  peractis  morem  sibi  discedendi  fuisse,  rursusque 
coeundi  ad  capiendum  cibum,  promiscuum  tameu  et  innoxium,  quo 
secundum  maudata  tua  hetaerias  esse  vetueram.  —  It  is  not  here  in  place 
to  consider  the  perplexing  questions  that  are  raised  by  this  report.  We 
must  remember  that  it  comes  to  us  through  the  distorting  medium  of 
a  pagan  governor.  But  it  may  be  regarded  as  certain  that  the  word 
sacramentum  has  here  no  reference  to  the  Eucharist  —  nor  to  any  formal 
cult  or  "  sacrament  "  in  the  Christian  sense.  At  least  neither  Tertullian 
(Apol.  2),  nor  Eusebius  (H.  E.  III.  33)  so  interpret  the  passage.  Mak- 
ing due  allowance  for  Pliny's  misinterpretation  of  the  facts,  the  account 
proves  that  moral  instruction  and  discipline  were  as  closely  as  ever  asso- 
ciated with  worship  in  the  morning  assembly.  If  it  is  the  Lord's  Supper 
that  is  referred  to  in  the  account  of  the  evening  assembly,  it  is  not  possi- 
ble to  suppose  that  the  Christians  actually  ceased  to  celebrate  it  at  Pliny's 
command.  But  Rome's  suspicious  prohibition  of  guilds,  and  of  the 
feasts  in  which  they  expressed  their  social  aim,  and  sometimes  concealed 
a  political  tendency,  is  well  known ;  and  this  instance  of  the  operation 
of  the  law  may  perhaps  point  to  one  of  the  reasons  which  induced  the 
Christians  to  make  the  Eucharist  the  mere  symbol  of  a  feast,  which 
might  readily  be  associated  with  the  morning  assembly  —  as  in  fact  it 
was,  according  to  Justin  Martyr's  account,  less  than  fifty  years  later. 

13 


194  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

subsequent  liturgies,  and  it  has  profoundly  affected  both 
the  character  of  the  Eucharistic  celebration  and  the  doc- 
trinal conception  of  the  sacrament.  To  this  was  due  the 
elaboration  of  the  liturgy  ;  and,  though  a  later  age  elim- 
inated the  most  significant  practices  of  the  primitive 
assembly  for  instruction,  certain  traditional  elements  — 
hymns,  lections,  and  prayers  —  have  ever  since  been  re- 
garded as  essential  to  the  decent,  if  not  to  the  valid, 
administration  of  the  sacrament.  The  Eucharist,  on 
being  separated  from  the  agape  and  united  with  the 
service  of  instruction,  ceased  to  be  a  meal  in  the  proper 
sense,  and  the  agape  itself  fell  into  low  estimation,  be- 
ing no  longer  regarded  as  a  function  in  which  the 
whole  Church  was  supposed  to  be  represented.  Until 
the  fourth  century  there  seems  to  have  been  no  dispo- 
sition to  ignore  the  social  implications  of  the  Eucha- 
rist ;  but  the  implication  was  no  longer  a  clear  one  when 
the  common  meal  —  the  striking  symbol  of  fellowship 
—  had  been  reduced  to  its  present  proportions ;  conse- 
quently the  Catholic  doctrine  of  sacrifice  on  the  one 
hand,  and  on  the  other  the  popular  religious  indiffer- 
ence which  led  to  the  practice  of  non-communicating 
attendance,  freely  operated  to  produce  the  strongly 
individualistic  conception  of  the  sacrament  which  pre- 
vailed until  the  Reformation. 

There  are  intimations  that  the  earlier  mode  of  cele- 
brating the  Eucharist  persisted  even  beyond  this  time 
in  assemblies  of  a  more  or  less  private  character  —  per- 
haps in  connection  with  the  agape.  But  it  was  a  fun- 
damental principle  of  early  Catholicism  to  regard  the 
principal  assembly  (the  bishop's  assembly)  as  the  only 
legitimate  manifestation  of  the  Ecclesia  (that  is,  of 
Christendom) ;  and  the  theory  required  that  the  Eu- 
charist—  which  could  not  but  be  accounted  the  fore- 


§  12]  OF   CHURCH  ASSEMBLIES  IN  GENERAL  195 

most  observance  of  the  Church  —  be  confined  to  the 
bishop's  assembly  exclusively.  For,  in  spite  of  this 
theory,  it  was  not  possible  to  deny  that  an  assembly 
that  was  met  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist  was  an  assem- 
bly of  the  Church. 

In  the  Apostolic  Age,  and  indeed  from  the  very  be- 
ginning of  it,  a  distinction  was  made  as  a  matter  of  fad 
—  though  never  as  a  matter  of  theory  —  between  the 
principal  assembly  (the  assembly  of  the  whole  commun- 
ity in  any  locality)  and  such  minor  assemblies  as  we 
might  be  inclined  to  call  private.  The  address  of  sev- 
eral of  St.  Paul's  epistles  ^°  implies  not  only  the  ideal 
unity  of  the  Christians  of  a  particular  town,  but  an 
actual  assembly  representative  of  the  whole  Church  to 
which  the  letter  might  be  read.  Other  assemblies  there 
undoubtedly  were  which  were  wont  to  meet  more  or 
less  habitually  in  this  or  that  private  house,"  and  which 
actually  included  only  a  minor  part  of  the  disciples. 
But  such  an  assembly  was  none  the  less  entitled  to  be 
called  a  Church.  In  reality  there  was  no  such  tiling' 
as  a  private  assembly :  there  was  no  assembly  from 
which  any  Christian  from  far  or  near  was  theoretically 
excluded  —  practical  exigencies  alone  accounted  for  the 
limitation.  The  spirit  of  Christian  brotherhood,  how- 
ever, was  satisfied  only  with  the  largest  expression  of 
fellowship  that  was  at  any  given  time  attainable ;  and, 
without  prejudice  to  the  competence  of  smaller  assem- 
blies, the  notion  of  the  principal  assembly,  in  which  all 
members  of  the  community  were  normally  expected  to 
take  part,  was  clearly  enough  defined.^^     It  was  almost 

^°  "  Unto  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth ;  "  "  unto  the  Church 
of  the  Thessalonians ;  "  —  cf.  "unto  the  Churches  of  Galatia." 

"  Col.  4  :  15  ;  Philem.  2. 

12  From  1  Cor.  11  :  18,  20,  22  it  is  clear  that  all  the  members  of  the 
community  were  accustomed  to  assemble  ev  eKKXrja-ia,  or  enl  to  airo,  for 


196  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

exclusively  in  connection  with  the  principal  assembly 
that  the  idea  of  Church  offices  was  developed  and  the 
function  of  the  officers  was  defined. 


§  13,   CONDUCT   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY 

The  most  of  our  information  about  the  character 
of  the  assembly  for  instruction  we  owe  to  the  highly 
suggestive  hints  of  1  Cor.  14.  This  passage  is  pecul- 
iarly liable  to  misinterpretation,  and  to  derive  thence 
a  correct  picture  of  the  normal  conduct  of  the  assembly 
requires  the  most  cautious  criticism.  In  the  first 
place,  the  picture  is  incomplete,  for  St.  Paul  had  oc- 
casion to  notice  only  those  elements  of  the  service 
in  respect  to  which  a  tendency  to  exaggeration  and 
disorder  was  manifested.  In  the  second  place,  the 
high  colors  in  which  the  picture  of  the  Corinthian 
assembly  is  painted  require  some  abatement,  if  we 
would  represent  to  ourselves  the  character  of  the  nor- 
mal assembly.  The  abatement,  however,  touches  only 
the  question  of  orderliness,  not  at  all  that  of  free- 
dom ;  that  is,  the  liberty  of  general  participation  in  the 
service.  Certain  of  the  spiritual  gifts  were  every- 
where liable  to  abuse :  in  the  Church  at  Corinth  the 
abuse  had  become  so  flagrant  as  to  call  for  the  inter- 
vention of  the  apostle.  Prophecy  and  tongues  were 
especially  abused,  but  so  also  was  the  gift  of  teaching 
in  general.  Tongues,  unless  they  were  interpreted, 
the  apostle  would  exclude  entirely  from  the  assembly, 

the  Lord's  Supper  —  hence  it  is  that  people  out  of  every  social  class  were 
to  be  found  in  that  assembly  (cc.  21,  22).  Likewise  in  14  :  23  it  is 
implied  that  "  the  whole  Church  "  was  regulai'ly  accustomed  to  assemble 
for  instruction.  It  was  in  the  principal  assembly  the  disorders  here  re- 
ferred to  arose,  and  it  is  to  that  assembly  the  apostle's  ordinauces 
(14  :  26  sq.)   applied. 


§  13]  CONDUCT  OF  THE   ASSEMBLY  197 

as  not  conducive  to  edification ;  and  in  any  case  he 
would  limit  these  enthusiastic  manifestations  to  "  two 
or  at  the  most  three  "  in  any  one  assembly,  with  the 
requisition  that  the  speeches  be  not  uttered  all  at  once, 
but  in  turn,  accompanied  severally  by  their  interpreta- 
tions {v.  27).  Highly  as  St.  Paul  valued  the  edifying 
gift  of  prophecy,  he  would  limit  the  prophetic  addresses 
likewise  to  "  two  or  three  "  {v.  29)  in  every  assembly, 
in  order  that  less  gifted  teachers,  and  others  who 
possessed  various  edifying  gifts,  might  also  have  a 
turn.  The  prophets  are  also  exhorted  to  show  such 
consideration  for  one  another  as  they  had  evidently 
not  showed  in  the  past,  by  yielding  place  to  the  next 
in  order  that  claimed  to  have  a  revelation. 

These  highly  gifted  members  were  disposed  to  use 
their  gifts  tyrannically,  monopolizing  among  them  the 
whole  time  of  the  assembly,  and  yielding  with  a  bad 
grace  to  others  even  who  claimed  the  like  exalted 
endowments.  St.  Paul  reminds  them  (c.  12)  that  all 
gifts  and  ministries  in  the  Church  —  of  whatever  sort 
they  be,  however  notable  or  however  humble  —  are 
wrought  by  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  dividing  to  each 
one  severally  as  he  will.  He  impresses  upon  them 
the  fact  that  as  members  of  a  body  each  has  need  of 
the  other,  that  every  organ  performs  a  function  which 
is  necessary  to  the  welfare  of  the  whole  and  conducive 
to  the  proper  operation  of  each  several  part ;  therefore 
none  can  dispense  with  the  other,  none  dare  boast 
himself  above  the  other,  —  for  "  if  they  were  all  one 
member,  where  were  the  body  ? "  He  encourages 
them  to  "  desire  the  greater  gifts,"  yet  one  quality 
which  has  no  element  of  the  miraculous  about  it  he 
praises  as  "  a  still  more  excellent  way ; "  namely,  love, 
the  indispensable  condition  of  unity  and  order  —  which 


198  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  Il^STRUCTION  [III 

"  vaunteth  not  itself,  is  not  puffed  up,  doth  not  behave 
itself  unseemly."  Finally  (14  :  26-31),  he  proposes 
definite  rules  of  procedure  which  are  intended  to  in- 
sure the  free  participation  of  each,  and  the  edification 
of  all. 

It  emerges  clearly  from  this  whole  account  that 
the  freedom  of  every  member  to  contribute  according 
to  his  gifts  to  the  edification  of  the  assembly  was 
in  theory  absolutely  unrestricted.  In  the  Church  at 
Corinth  many  were  as  a  matter  of  fact  debarred  from 
the  exercise  of  their  privilege  by  the  abuse  of  this 
very  freedom  on  the  part  of  the  prophets  and  others. 
But  this  only  makes  it  the  more  evident  that  there 
was  no  officer  in  the  assembly  empowered  to  appoint 
the  speakers,  or  even  to  "  recognize  "  them  and  call 
to  order.  This  is  as  much  as  to  say,  there  was  no 
presiding  officer  at  all.  But  more  than  this,  the 
assemhli/  itself  had  no  right  to  repress  any  member 
who  would  exercise  his  gifts.  Hence  the  perplexity 
of  the  problem  that  was  raised  by  the  actual  abuse 
of  liberty.  The  most  significant  thing  we  have  to 
note  in  this  whole  passage  is  St.  Paul's  way  of  dealing 
with  the  difficulty.  Strong  as  was  his  insistence  upon 
order,  he  did  not  suffer  this  aim  to  beguile  him  into 
any  act  or  counsel  which  might  be  construed  as  an 
encroachment  upon  liberty/.  On  the  contrary,  such 
regulations  as  he  does  propose  are  calculated  to  protect 
all  in  the  practical  exercise  of  the  liberty  which  they 
theoretically  enjoyed.  For  St.  Paul,  liberty  and  order 
are  not  incompatible  ideas :  rather  are  they  correlates, 
since  the  liberty  here  in  question  is  simply  the  liberty 
to  follow  the  promptings  of  God's  Spirit  in  the  exercise 
of  the  gifts  which  he  bestows,  and  "God  is  not  a 
God  of  confusion,  but  of  peace." 


§  13]  CONDUCT  OF  THE   ASSEMBLY  199 

Disorder  —  the  abuse  of  liberty  —  was  doubtless  pe- 
culiar in  some  measure  to  the  Church  at  Corinth,  but 
liberty  of  participation  in  the  exercises  of  the  assembly 
was  evidently  a  principle  which  St.  Paul  maintained 
in  all  the  Churches  of  his  founding.  There  is  evidence 
that  the  custom  of  the  Jewish-Christian  Churches  was 
the  same.  And  even  where  the  more  exalted  spiritual 
gifts  were  rare  or  unknown  this  liberty  was  apt  to  oc- 
casion inconvenience,  —  for  example,  through  the  desire 
of  many  to  assume  the  honor  and  function  of  the 
teacher.  This  is  the  case  St.  James  contemplates 
when  he  exhorts  the  brethren  (3:1),  "Be  not  many 
teachers."  By  the  fact  that  he  appeals  directly  to 
the  individuals  who  are  inclined  to  abuse  the  patience 
of  the  assembly,  impressing  upon  them  the  solemnity 
of  the  obligations  they  assume  in  taking  upon  them- 
selves so  high  a  function,  and  the  danger  of  condem- 
nation they  incur  through  indiscretions  of  speech,  he 
implies  that  there  is  no  power  in  the  congregation  to 
restrict  the  liberty  of  teaching.  St.  Paul,  too,  appeals 
solely  to  the  individuals  that  cause  the  trouble :  he 
assumes  no  power  on  the  part  of  the  assembly  to 
repress  them,  and  lays  down  no  formal  rule  that  might 
operate  to  restrict  their  liberty ;  but  he  exhorts  them 
to  self -repression,  and  enforces  the  obligations  of  the! 
moral  law  which  bids  them  have  respect  to  the  gifts  of 
others  as  members  together  of  one  body.  In  this  con- 
nection he  reminds  the  prophets  that  they  are  not 
driven  to  speak  by  an  irresistible  impulse  —  for  (14: 
32,  33)  "  the  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the  I  j 
prophets,"  and  "  God  is  not  a  God  of  confusion,  but  of  '^  / 
peace,  as  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  saints."  The  im- 
position of  any  formal  restriction  upon  those  who 
would    exercise  the  gift  of  teaching  is  prohibited  by 


200  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

a  fundamental  doctrinal  consideration.  For  the  gift 
of  teaching  in  all  its  phases  —  the  psalm,  the  teaching, 
the  revelation,  the  tongue,  and  the  interpretation  —  is 
a  gift  of  God's  Spirit,  and  all  that  teach  speak  authori- 
tatively as  on  God's  behalf.  The  consciousness  of  the 
whole  early  period  is  aptly  expressed  in  1  Peter  4:11: 
"  If  any  man  speaketh,  [let  him  speak]  as  it  were 
oracles  of  God." 

It  appears,  however,  that  in  some  parts  there  was 
a  disposition  to  affirm  that  the  assembly  had  authority 
to  abridge  freedom  of  speech  in  the  interests  of  order| 
and  edification.     Even  at  Corinth  the  apostle  has  to 
say  to   the  assembly  (16:39),  "Forbid  not   to  speak 
with  tongues,"  —  while  at  the  same  time  he  finds  it 
necessary  to  limit  the  use  of  this  gift  so  far  as  possible! 
by    moral    suasion.     St.    Paul    appears    again   as   the 
champion    of   liberty   in  his   warning   to   the    Thessa- 
lonians  (1  Thess.  5  :  19,  20)  :  "  Quench  not  the  Spirit; 
despise  not  prophesyings."     It  might  be  said,  indeed, 
that  the  authority  the  assembly  claimed  to  exercise  was 
not   a   quenching   of   the    Spirit  in  contempt  of   true  \ 
prophecy,    but    only    the     repression     of    those    that  \ 
falsely  claimed   the  gift.     The  suspicion  could  not  be 
suppressed    that  not    all   the  spirits  that   were    mani- 
fested in  the  Christian  assemblies  were  of  God.     But 
the   practical   issue  was   settled   by  the    apostle  in   1 
Cor.  12 : 2,  where   he   lays  down  the   thesis   that   thej 
presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  prophets  and  teachers,  { 
since  they  speak  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  —  for 
"no   man  can  say,  Jesus  is   Lord,  but   by  the   Holy 
Spirit." 

At  the  same  time,  the  assembly  is  not  condemned 
to  mere  passivity,  nor  to  unquestioning  reception  of 
the  doctrine  of  its  authoritative    teachers.     All   must 


§13]  CONDUCT  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY  201 

be  left  free  to  speak  —  but  having  heard  the  dis- 
courses, then  is  the  time  to  prove  the  spirits,  whether 
they  are  of  God.  In  1  Thess.  5 :  21,  St.  Paul  not . 
merely  permits  but  enjoins  the  testing  or  proving  | 
of  prophets  and  their  revelations.  So  too  in  1  Cor. 
14  :  29,  after  the  prophets  have  spoken,  he  says,  "  Let 
the  others  discriminate."  If  the  prophets  must  stand 
the  test  of  this  scrutiny  before  their  word  is  received 
as  the  word  of  God,  how  much  more  the  teachers  who 
boast  a  lesser  gift.  It  is  not  the  teachers  alone  that 
are  free,  nor  does  their  liberty  of  speech  constitute  a 
right  to  tyrannize  in  the  name  of  God  over  the  assem- 
bly :  the  assembly  acts  with  equal  freedom  in  accepting 
or  rejecting  the  messages  even  of  the  prophets,  and  in 
so  doing,  it,  too,  acts  not  according  to  arbitrary  liking, 
but  in  virtue  of  a  spiritual  gift  that  is  common  to  all 
in  some  measure,  namely,  "  the  discerning  of  spirits."  ^ 

It  is  manifest  that  every  form  of  legal  organization/  / 
or  of  legally  prescribed  order  is  incompatible  with  thel/ 
absolute  freedom  that  was  enjoyed  in  the  early  Chris- 
tian assemblies.  But  it  is  quite  a  different  question 
whether  order  'per  se  is  incompatible  with  such  liberty. 
"We  carelessly  assume  that  the  two  conceptions  are  con- 
tradictory, but  the  assumption  will  not  bear  examina- 
tion. It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  argue  the  general 
question,  for  we  are  here  dealing  with  a  particular  case. 
We  must  conceive  of  order  in  the  most  general  terms 

1  In  1  Cor.  12 :  10  this  is  mentioned  among  the  gifts  which  distinguish 
one  Christian  from  another,  equipping  the  members  for  the  performance 
of  their  various  functions  in  the  one  body.  But  in  14  :  29  it  seems  to  heS, 
assumed  that  ' '  discernment "  is  a  function  which  all  are  capable  of  ex-  \ 
ercising  —  cf.  1  John  2:20,  27;  4:  1-6.  Certain  it  is  that  the  reception, 
without  which  no  teaching  could  gain  currency  or  authority  in  the 
Church,  must  depend  upon  the  express  or  tacit  consent  of  all  —  that  is, 
practically,  of  an  overwhelming  majority. 


202  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [in 

(excluding  all  notion  of  law,  formal  prescription,  or  au- 
thoritative compulsion);  but  on  the  other  hand  tliei 
liherti/  here  in  question  is  qualified  by  a  very  important  | 
condition;  namely,  that  it  is  exercised  in  response  to 
the  promptings  of  God's  Spirit  and  solely  in  the  em- 
ployment of  spiritual  gifts.  If  we  accept  these  "  gifts  " 
at  their  Christian  valuation,  and  do  not  account  them 
a  manifestation  of  deluded  enthusiasm,  we  have  to  re- 
cognize the  force  of  St.  Paul's  postulate,  that  "  God  is 
not  a  God  of  confusion,  but  of  peace ; "  and  this  justi- 
fies us  in  sharing  his  conviction  that  perfect  freedom 
for  the  exercise  of  all  the  gifts  divinely  bestowed  upon 
the  Ecclesia  is  the  only  way  to  attain  the  order  that  is 
conformable  to  God's  will.  We  have  here,  not  the  con- 
ception of  liberty  without  rule  (which  is  license),  but 
liberty  under  the  rule  of  God  alone. 

We  can  see  now  more  plainly  than  when  the  matter 
was  first  discussed  that  the  divine  organization  which 
is  given  in  the  charismatic  endowments  of  the  Church 
can  never  be  a  legal  organization.  There  is  only  one 
element  entering  into  it  that  can  in  any  wise  be  con- 
strued as  constituting  a  formal  right  —  a  right  inherent 
in  an  office  as  such.  It  was  altogether  natural  that  the 
assembly  should  come  to  recognize  certain  of  its  mem- 
bers as  permanently  endowed  with  particular  gifts  for 
instruction.  But  fundamentally  the  recognition  was 
understood  to  apply,  not  to  the  teachers  themselves, 
but  to  their  immediate  utterances.  And  though  the 
popular  recognition  of  this  or  that  man  as  prophet, 
evangelist,  or  teacher,  must  have  vastly  increased  the 
presumption  in  favor  of  his  teaching,  the  spiritual  as- 
sembly was  theoretically  as  free  as  ever  to  exercise  the 
gift  of  discernment  for  the  reception  or  rejection  of 
the  doctrine  proposed  to  it. 


§  13]  CONDUCT  OF   THE   ASSEMBLY  203 

The  lively  competition  in  the  exercise  of  spiritual 
gifts  which  was  manifested  in  the  Church  at  Corinth 
we  have  good  reason  to  consider  exceptional.  There 
were  doubtless  Churches  that  needed  not  so  much  to 
be  cautioned  about  the  abuse  of  their  gifts  as  exhorted 
to  the  use  of  them.^  And  even  in  Corinth,  participa- 
tion in  the  instruction  of  the  assembly  was  not  so  gen- 
eral as  St.  Paul's  phrases  are  apt  to  suggest  —  or  as  he 
himself  desired.  When  the  apostle  urges  the  Corin- 
thians to  "  desire  earnestly  spiritual  gifts  "  (14  :  1),  it  is 
implied  that  all  did  not  possess  them,  and  consequently 
were  not  equipped  for  any  active  part  in  the  assembly. 
The  ordinances  that  he  proposes  in  14  :  26-31  were  ex- 
pressly designed  to  protect  all  in  the  exercise  of  their 
privilege :  but  it  is  evident  that  all  did  not  avail  them- 
selves of  the  opportunity.  It  is  evident,  too,  that  in 
a  single  assembly  all  could  not  find  turn  to  speak.  If 
the  prophets  were  to  speak  only  by  two  or  three  in 
each  assembly,  less  gifted  teachers  were  surely  not  ex- 
pected to  present  themselves  in  greater  number.  When 
St.  Paul  says  {v.  31),  "Ye  can  all  prophesy  one  by 
one,"  he  does  not  expect  all  the  prophets  to  speak  in 
the  same  assembly,  and  still  less  does  he  give  us  to 
infer  that  all  the  disciples  in  Corinth  were  prophets. 
He  encourages  them  all  to  desire  "  the  greater  gifts " 
(12  :  31)  and  especially  the  gift  of  prophecy  (14  :  1,  39) : 
but  at  the  same  time  he  recognizes  that  prophecy  is 
actually  a  distinctive  gift  in  the  community  (12  :  10), 
and  in  12  :  29  he  asks  rhetorically,  *^  Are  all  apostles? 
are  all  prophets  ?  are  all  teachers  ? "  Prophecy  was 
doubtless  a  rare  gift  even  in  the  Corinthian  Church,  ' 

2  We  have  this  exhortation,  for  instance,  in  1  Peter  4: 10,  "accord- 
ing as  each  hath  received  a  gift  (;(apto-|ua),  ministering  it  among  your- 
selves, as  good  stewards  of  the  manifold  bounty  (;^apiros)  of  God." 


204  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR   INSTRUCTIOX  [in 

and  the  lower  gifts  of  teaching  were  very  far  indeed 
from  being  universal.  St.  Paul  does  not  deny  the  pres- 
ence of  the  prophetic  gift  in  women  (11  :  5),  nor  al- 
together forbid  the  exercise  of  it ;  —  only,  "  in  the 
assembly"  (14:34)  seemly  order  requires  that  they 
shall  not  speak  at  all. 

St.  Paul  teaches  that  the  Ecclesia  (the  Assembly)  is 
divinely  organized  through  the  gifts  of  God's  Spirit,  — 
"  dividing  to  each  one  severally  as  he  will."  But  these 
several  functions  do  not  necessatil/j  express  themselves 
in  what  we  should  call  offices.  Just  in  proportion  as 
the  spiritual  life  of  the  community  is  active  and  gen- 
eral, official  distinctions  must  be  less  marked.  The  ever 
widening  gulf  that  separated  clergy  and  laity  in  a  later 
age  was  due  as  much  to  lay  indifference  as  to  priestly 
arrogance.  If  all  were  active  in  the  exercise  of  this  or 
the  other  gift  for  the  edification  of  the  community,  all 
would  be  officers,  and  the  conception  of  office  in  general 
would  be  vague  for  lack  of  contrast.  If  all  prophesied, 
there  would  be  no  "  prophets  "  —  that  is  to  say,  in  less 
paradoxical  terms,  there  would  be  no  such  office  or  dis- 
tinction as  this  name  implies.  It  is  because  apostles 
and  prophets^  were  rare  in  the  Church,  that  they  were 
clearly  distinguished  by  the  name  of  their  office  (cf.  1 
Cor.  12  :  28).  There  were  also  minor  gifts  of  teaching,  i 
which  were  less  rare  and  less  striking :  hence  the  name  I 
"teacher,"  which  was  employed  for  the  rank  next 
below  the  prophets,  did  not  so  definitely  indicate  an 
office.  As  we  shall  see  subsequently,  the  gift  of  teach-l 
ing  was  implied  in  all  the  offices  of  the  Church."*  Other 
gifts  there  were,  whether  of  teaching  or  of  ministry 
(Rom.  12 :  7),  which  tardily  or  never  gave  rise  to  dis- 

8  Ephes.  4:  11  adds  "evangelists." 

■*  Ephes.  4: 11  associates  "  pastors  and  teachers." 


§  13]  CONDUCT   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY  205 

tinctions  of  office.^     The  lack  of  a  name  for  an  offica'j 
implies  that  the  distinction  was  not  yet  made.^  7 

s  It  is  natural  that  the  gifts  that  were  prominently  exercised  in  the 
assembly  itself  should  be  the  first  to  give  rise  to  distinctions  of  office. 
The  official  stand  of  the  membei's  would  be  marked  by  their  place  and 
function  in  the  assembly.  Other  gifts  there  were  which  were  no  less 
important  to  the  community,  and  certainly  no  less  divine  in  their  origin, 
yet  manifested  primarily  in  a  more  private  sphere  —  such  perhaps  were 
the  "helps,"  "guidances,"  "  gifts  of  healing,"  etc.  Cf.  Rom.  12  :  7,  8  — 
"ministry,"  "he  that  giveth,"  "he  that  showeth  mercy."  The  pos- 
sessors of  these  serviceable  gifts  came  only  gradually  to  occupy  a  place  in 
the  assembly  beside  the  inspired  teachers.  The  list  in  Ephes.  4:  11  marks 
a  development  of  official  categories :  after  apostles  and  prophets  it  ranks 
"evangelists"  (probably  men  like  Timothy  and  Titus),  and  it  classes 
together  "pastors  and  teachers."  This  passage  represents  that  the 
pastoral  office,  like  every  other,  is  constituted  by  the  impartation  of  a 
divine  charisma,  and  the  conjunction  of  the  titles  pastor  and  teacher  (in 
this  context)  shows  that  teaching  was  the  principal  gift  and  function 
of  this  office  also.  It  was  with  the  divine  word  the  pastor  was  to  feed 
the  flock.  On  the  other  hand,  the  name  certainly  indicates  a  sort  of 
practical  service  that  did  not  belong  to  the  teaching  office  as  such ;  and 
if  the  figure  of  the  shepherd  is  to  be  taken  seriously  it  cannot  but  sug- 
gest a  sphere  of  activity  outside  the  assembly,  —  e.  g.  wise  counsels 
(Kv^epvTjcreis)  and  practical  ministrations  (di/rtXjjt//'ei?)  to  individuals,  and 
oversight  of  the  community  at  large.  Speaking  and  ministering  are  the 
two  generic  conceptions  under  which  1  Peter  4: 11  classes  all  the  gifts 
that  are  supplied  to  the  Church  by  the  manifold  bounty  of  God.  The 
particular  example  of  administration  mentioned  in  this  context  is 
"  hospitality"  (r.  9).  Also  in  Rom.  12:  7  St.  Paul  contrasts  "ministry" 
and  "teaching;"  and  passing  from  the  enumeration  of  the  more  dis- 
tinctive spiritual  gifts  to  the  ordinary,  but  no  less  important,  manifesta- 
tions of  Christian  life,  he  mentions  particularly  "  hospitality,"  and 
"  communicating  to  the  necessities  of  the  saints  "  (v.  13).  In  1  Tim.  3  :  2 
and  Titus  1 :  8  it  is  required  of  a  candidate  for  the  office  of  bishop  that 


^  This  is  unqualifiedly  true,  if  we  are  considering  the  formal  distinc- 
tions of  office.  Jeremy  Taylor  asserted  the  postulate  that  an  office  might 
exist  without  a  distinctive  name,  or  even  under  the  name  of  another 
office  —  he  had  in  mind  particularly  the  office  of  bishop  as  existing  under 
the  name  of  the  presbyter's  office.  This  is  substantially  the  position  that 
Gore  and  Wordsworth  maintain  to-day.  And  this  dictum  is  also  true. 
if  we  have  respect  solely  to  the  endowment  —  not  to  the  office  properly  so 
called.  It  is  only,  however,  by  confounding  these  two  ideas  that  the 
argument  of  these  writers  can  be  kept  on  its  feet. 


^06  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

In  Rom.  12  :  6  sq.  St.  Paul  starts  out  as  though  he 
were  going  to  give  a  list  of  the  divers  gifts  that  are 
bestowed  upon  the  disciples  as  members  of  one  body. 
But  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  passes  by  an  easy  transition 
from  the  gifts  themselves  to  the  functions  which  they 
enable  the  members  to  perform  —  evidently  for  the 
reason  that  there  were  no  names  generally  in  use  to 
denote  the  less  distinctive  gifts,  for  example,  that  of 
liberality.  In  1  Cor.  12  :  8-10,  he  carries  through  an 
enumeration  —  by  no  means  a  complete  one  —  of  the 
(jifts,  describing  them,  however,  in  such  a  way  as  to 
suggest  again  that  they  were  not  all  of  them  definitely 
enough  distinguished  to  have  acquired  distinctive  and 
well  established  names.  Further  on  in  the  same  chap- 
ter {v.  28)  the  apostle  starts  out  by  naming  the  officers 

he  be  "given  to  hospitality."  We  can  well  understand  that  one  who 
was  preeminent  for  his  hospitality  would  acquire  a  high  and  leading 
place  in  the  community  —  especially  if,  like  Gaius  in  Rom.  16:22,  he 
might  be  described  as  "the  host  of  the  whole  Church."  In  1  Cor.  St. 
Paul  lays  great  stress  upon  the  practical  gifts  of  ministry,  though  they 
were  not  yet  thought  of  as  inhering  in  a  particular  office.  He  himself, 
however,  by  such  an  exhortation  as  he  gives  in  1  Cor.  16 :  15,  16,  clearly 
prepared  the  way  for  the  official  recognition  (in  a  leading  cS,pacity)  of 
such  persons  as  were  preeminently  devoted  to  the  social  service  of  the 
community  —  "Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren  (ye  know  the  house  of 
Stephanas,  that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  laid 
themselves  out  to  minister  unto  the  saints),  that  ye  also  be  in  subjection  unto 
such,  and  to  every  one  that  helpeth  in  the  work  and  lahoreth."  The  equip- 
ment for  such  service  as  the  hovise  of  Stephanas  performed  might  be 
either  natural  endowments,  or  worldly  goods,  or  —  rather  and  —  the 
spiritual  gift  which  prompts  to  expressions  of  fellowship.  The  New 
Testament  does  not  discriminate  sharply  between  these  conceptions  : 
all  were  gifts  of  God  ('  Talents '  in  the  sense  of  Jesus'  parable)  and  the 
brethren  were  bound  to  minister  them  among  themselves,  as  good 
stewards  of  the  manifold  bounty  of  God.  —  Certain  of  the  gifts  never 
gave  rise  to  offices,  nor  appeared  as  necessary  constituents  of  them, — 
either  because  they  were  occasional  (that  is,  not  constantly  manifested 
in  the  same  persons),  or  because  they  were  not  highly  accounted  of  as 
ministering  to  edification.  In  the  case  of  "tongues"  both  of  these 
reasons  combine  to  explain  why  there  was  no  corresponding  office. 


§  13]  CONDUCT   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY  207 

whom  God  hath  "  set  in  the  Church."  He  names,  "  first 
apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thh'dly  teachers  "  —  but 
there  the  enumeration  of  officers  stops,  because  there  ivere 
no  other  officers.  Regarded  as  the  offices  here  are  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  gifts  which  constitute  them,  the 
office  of  "  teacher  "  is  broad  enough  to  include  that  of 
pastor  or  bishop:  for  whatever  other  gifts  ("helps", 
and  "  governments  "  perhaps)  were  requisite  to  this  lat-  • 
ter  office,  that  of  teaching  was  the  chief  and  properly  I 
the  constitutive  one.  But  the  organization  of  the  body 
of  Christ  is  not  completely  described  by  mention  of 
the  offices  that  were  formally  recognized  :  therefore  the 
apostle  completes  his  enumeration  by  mentioning  the 
spiritual  gifts  and  the  informal  functions  that  corre- 
spond to  them  —  ^'  then  miracles,  then  gifts  of  heal- 
ings, helps,  guidances,  kinds  of  tongues."  He  makes 
the  same  transition  in  v.  29  :  "  Are  all  apostles  ?  are  all 
prophets  ?  are  all  teachers  ?  "  —  then,  "  are  all  (workers 
of)  miracles  ?  have  all  gifts  of  healings  ?  do  all  speak 
with  tongues?  do  all  interpret?"  Evidently  there 
were  no  ojfficers  in  the  Church  who  might  be  described 
as  interpreters  ^  as  speakers  of  tongues,  as  healers,  as 
helpers,  as  pilots  (or  counsellors).^ 

The  above  is  calculated  to  show  that  the  charismatic 
endowments  of  the  Church  were  not  by  natural  neces- 
sity the  occasion  of  disorder ;  but  on  the  contrary  that 
they  tended  by  degrees  to  develop  a  very  definite  order, 
and  ultimately  an  official  organization.     Even  the  stage 

■^  The  word  interpreter  might  of  course  be  used  —  as  in  1  Cor.  14  :  28, 
—  but  not  in  a  list  of  Church  officers. 

8  On  this  word  see  Hort,  Ojj.  cii.  p.  159.  The  word  "  miracles "  (or 
powers  —  8vvdfi€is)  is  used  in  this  latter  list  as  though  it  were  the  name 
of  an  office,  and  it  is  hardly  to  be  explained  except  as  an  attempt  (im- 
mediately afterwards  relinquished)  to  make  the  list  uniform  by  naming 
throughout  only  the  titles  of  the  persons  that  possessed  the  various  gifts. 


208  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

of  development  depicted  in  1  Cor.  is  not  without  formal 
elements  of  order :  for  instance,  in  the  restriction  of 
the  various  classes  of  teachers  to  a  definite  number  in 
each  assembly,  and  each  class  —  so  it  appears  —  to  a 
definite  sequence.  St.  Paul  tells  us  more  about  the 
disorder  of  the  Corinthian  assembly  than  about  its 
order,  and  within  certain  limits  one  is  left  free  to 
picture  as  one  will  the  character  of  divine  service  in 
that  age.  Where  little  can  be  proved,  we  may  at  least 
note  that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  data  furnished 
in  1  Cor.  to  imagine  that  even  at  that  time  and  in 
Corinth  there  might  have  been  a  pretty  well  established 
frame-work  —  order  of  service  —  within  which  the  freest 
exercise  of  the  spiritual  gifts  was  still  possible. 

It  needs  to  be  asserted  again  and  again  that  the. 
exercise  of  spiritual  gifts  constituted  no  antithesis  to 
a  traditionally  established  order,  —  whether  it  be  an 
orderly  organization  that  is  in  question,  or  a  liturgical 
order.  The  early  and  uniform  development  of  liturgi- 
cal order  in  the  Catholic  Church  is  an  historic  fact  with 
which  we  have  to  reckon  when  we  study  the  character 
of  divine  service  in  the  preceding  period.  If  primitive 
Christianity  had  started  —  like  the  sect  of  Quakers  — 
with  a  theoretical  repudiation  of  all  formal  order,  if  as 
a  matter  of  principle  it  had  set  its  face  against  the 
establishment  of  traditional  customs  (the  regular  recur- 
rence of  accustomed  forms)  as  inconsistent  with  spir- 
itual freedom,  it  is  certain  that  the  Catholic  liturgies 
would  never  have  been  developed,  —  or  at  least  not 
without  such  a  protest  as  must  have  rent  the  Church. 
This  development,  again,  would  have  been  equally 
impossible  had  the  early  Church  held  the  rigid  view 
of  inspiration  —  the  precise  opposite  of  the  above  — 
which  is   illustrated  by  the  extremer  sects  of  Scotch 


§  14]  PRAYER   AND   PRAISE  209 

Presbyterians,  who  boast  no  "  tongues,"  no  "  proph- 
ecy," no  genuine  "  gift  "  of  teaching,  and  yet  admit  no 
formal  elements  of  public  worship  except  such  as  are 
taken  from  the  Bible  —  no  hymns  but  the  Psalms  of 
David,  no  prayers  derived  from  ''  uninspired  "  sources, 
except  such  as  may  be  accounted  the  extempore  produc- 
tion of  the  speaker,  with  a  preference  for  an  artificial 
mosaic  "  composed  chiefly  in  the  words  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture." The  early  Church  was  more  in  earnest  about  its 
"  gifts "  of  teaching  (including  prayer)  than  are  our 
modern  evangelicals,  and  more  consistent  than  are  the 
Quakers.  The  "  psalm  "  or  prayer  that  was  uttered  by 
a  prophet  or  a  teacher  was  to-morrow  or  the  year  after 
accounted  no  less  "  spiritual "  (inspired  or  gifted  in 
whatever  degree  it  might  be),  no  less  worthy  as  an 
expression  of  public  devotion,  than  upon  the  occasion 
when  it  was  first  uttered ;  and  if  it  was  a  studied 
composition,  a  work  of  some  poetic  or  literary  art 
which  the  memory  could  easily  retain,  it  might  be 
rehearsed  frequently  in  the  assembly,  and  so,  under- 
going gradual  changes  as  it  passed  from  mouth  to 
mouth,  with  the  sanction  of  popular  reception  and 
common  use,  it  might  become  a  recognized  formula 
of  public  worship.  In  short,  the  high  estimation  in 
which  the  spiritual  gifts  were  held  was  anything  but 
hostile  to  the  development  of  liturgical  forms. 

§  14,   PRAYER   AND   PRAISE 

The  constituent  parts  of  Christian  worship  are  in  one 

place  or  another  pretty  fully  enumerated  by  St.  Paul, 

and  in  1  Cor.  14  :  26  he  seems  to  give  us  a  clue  to  their 

relation  in  orderly  sequence.    It  is  a  short  list  which  he 

here  gives  (a  psalm,  a  teaching,  a  revelation,  a  tongue, 

u 


210  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

an  interpretation),  but  it  must  be  regarded  rather  as 
highly  generalized  than  as  incomplete. 

The  '"  psalm,"  a  specific  form  of  prayer,  may  here  be 
taken  to  represent  prayer  in  general.  Ephes.  5  :  19  and 
Col.  3  :  16  distinguish  three  varieties  of  poetical  utter- 
ance :  "  psalms,  hymns,  spiritual  songs."  ^  Here  again 
they  are  regarded  as  the  expression  of  spiritual  gifts : 
they  are  all  alike  described  as  "  spiritual ; "  and  in  the 
latter  passage  it  is  expressly  said  that  they  are  uttered 
"  by  grace  "  (eV  ^dpiTi),  while  a  relation  is  furthermore 
implied  with  "  the  word  of  Christ,"  concerning  which 
the  apostle  prays  that  it  may  dwell  in  the  disciples 
richly  with  all  wisdom.  Regarded  as  specific  varieties 
oi  prayer^  these  three  parts  —  psalms,  hymns,  and  songs 
—  are  all  alike  expressions  of  thanksgiving  or  praise, 
in  distinction  from  petition.  How  various  must  have 
been  the  material  with  which  they  dealt,  and  how  lively 
their  reference  to  the  personal  experiences  of  the  Chris- 
tian life,  we  may  gather  from  the  following  verse  — 
"  and  whatsoever  ye  do,  in  word  or  in  deed,  do  all  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God  the 
Father  through  him."  But  this  same  passage  also  gives 
us  the  interesting  hint  that  Christian  psalmody  might 
be  adapted  to  fulfil  the  specific  ends  of  teaching  — 
"  teaching  and  admonishing  one  another  with  psalms," 
etc.  In  a  more  general  sense  there  is  no  doubt  that 
prayer  in  all  its  forms  was  regarded  as  a  manifestation 
of  the  teaching  gift,  an  expression  of  the  in-dwelling 
word  of  Christ  (cf.  Col.  3  :  16). 

In  1  Cor.  14  :  14,  15,  St.  Paul  distinguishes  the  two 
sorts  of  prayer,  petition  and  praise  —  Trpocrevx^o-OaL 
and  xfjdWeiv.     Both  are  spiritual  manifestations  (like 

^  yj/aXnol,  vfivoi,  w8ai,  —  the  adjective  nvfvfiaTiKos,  I  take  it,  qualifies 
them  all. 


§  14]  PRAYER  AND  PRAISE  211 

the  "  tongues  "),  yet  none  the  less  exercises  of  the  un- 
derstanding. In  the  following  verse  the  prayer  of 
"  blessing  "  (euXoyetv)  ^  is  evidently  used  as  the  equiva- 
lent of  "thanksgiving"  {evx^apLa-reLv) ;  and  in  this 
connection  we  have  the  interesting  notice  that  the 
brethren  were  accustomed  to  express  their  participa- 
tion in  the  prayer  by  responding  with  "  the  Amen."  ^ 
That  St.  Paul  mentions  only  the  psalm  in  1  Cor.  14 :  26 
may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  prayers  of  thanksgiving 
and  praise  greatly  preponderated  in  the  assembly, 
though  prayers  of  petition  were  also  in  use.* 

One  may  say  that  prayer,  more  than  any  other  act. 
that  took  place  in  the  assembly,  can  be  assumed  as  a. 
matter  of  course.^     It  is  all  the  more  significant,  there- 

2  The  blessing  of  God  is  meant,  as  in  the  Jewish  blessing  at  meals,., 
and  similarly  in  the  supreme  Eucharistic  blessing  of  the  Church. 

8  The  Amen  seems  to  have  been  associated  especially  with  doxologies. 
Cf.  von  der  Goltz,  Das  Gebet  in  der  dltesten  Christenheit,  1901,  p.  160. 

**  The  prayer  of  petition,  moreover,  required  no  special  spiritual  en- 
dowment, nor  any  such  careful  preparation  as  did  the  psalm.  It  required 
only  the  simplest  expression  —  indeed  it  properly  admitted  of  no  more. 
The  early  "  bidding  prayer  "  (and  the  later  litanies)  better  comports  with, 
the  straightforward  simplicity  of  petition  than  do  the  Latin  collects. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  whole  wealth  of  spiritual  rhetoric  was  lavished' 
upon  the  expressions  of  Christian  praise,  doxology,  and  thanksgiving.  The 
preponderance  of  praise  over  prayer  in  the  early  liturgies  probably  reflects 
the  relative  importance  attributed  to  these  respective  elements  of  worship 
in  the  primitive  assembly.  In  the  course  of  the  Middle  Ages  this  pro- 
portion was  gradually  reversed ;  and  to-day  the  Protestant  Churches  no 
less  than  the  Catholic  display  a  decided  preponderance  in  their  public 
worship  of  the  element  of  petition.  This  tendency  is  only  partially 
offset  by  our  modern  hymns,  since  they  too  partake  largely  of  the  same 
character.  —  Prayer  and  Thanksgiving  are  associated  and  yet  contrasted 
in  Phil.  4:6;  Col.  4  :  2;  1  Thess.  5  :  18;  1  Tim.  2:1.  We  have  emphatic 
exhortation  to  thanksgiving  in  Ephes.  5  :  20;  Col.  2:7;  3  :  15-17. 

^  Cf.  Weizsacker,  op.  cit.  p.  556.  In  1  Cor.  11 :4  Paul  mentions  the 
praying  man  along  with  the  prophesying  man ;  he  contrasts  (14  :  15} 
the  spiritual  prayer  uttered  in  a  tongue,  with  the  prayer  that  is  intelli- 
gible to  the  congregation.  He  exhorts  (Rom.  12  :  12)  the  congregation 
as  such  to  steadfast  continuance  in  prayer.     In  certain  cases  he  speaks 


212  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

fore,  that  in  giving  a  list  of  the  contributions  lo  the 
assembly  which  are  especially  conditioned  by  spiritual 
gifts  (1  Cor.  14  :  26),  the  apostle  mentions  only  the 
most  formal  variety  of  prayer ;  namely,  the  psalm.  It 
is  very  important  to  observe  that  extempore  utterance 
was  accounted  no  criterion  of  the  spirituality  of  prayer. 
The  psalm  was  a  variety  of  prayer  which  preeminently 
required  the  cooperation  of  the  understanding  (1  Cor. 
14  :  16) :  the  name  indicates  a  close  analogy  with  the 
Psalms  of  Scripture,  and  hence  implies  that  consider- 
able literary  art  must  have  been  exercised  in  its  compo- 
sition. The  passage  further  implies  that  on  coming  to 
the  assembly  each  was  already  prepared  to  contribute 
his  psalm.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  not  merely  an 
Old  Testament  Psalm,  to  be  read  or  recited  from  mem- 
ory to  the  assembly  :  the  fundamental  idea  here  is  that 
each  contribution  is  the  product  of  the  individual  gift 
of  one  or  another  of  the  disciples,  therefore  each  must 
have  offered  a  psalm  of  his  own  composition,  either 
himself  singing  it  before  the  assembly  {v.  15),  or  impart- 
ing it  in  some  other  way.  It  lay  in  the  nature  of  the 
case  that  a  selection  would  gradually  be  made  of  such 
psalms  as  proved  worthy  of  a  permanent  place  in  the 
common  worship.  Such  an  act  of  selection,  however 
spontaneous  and  natural,  must  be  regarded  as  one  of 
the  spiritual  functions  of  the  assembly  as  a  whole. 
Furthermore,  what  was  originally  contributed  to  a  par- 

in  such  wise  of  dealing  with  a  matter  in  prayer,  that  only  common 
prayer  in  the  assembly  can  be  thought  of,  —  as  Rom.  15  :  30 ;  2  Cor. 
1:11;  9  :  12-14.  It  appears  in  part  from  these  passages,  as  also  from 
1  Cor.  11 :  4,  that  prayer  in  the  congregation  is  not  confined  to  persons 
specially  delegated  to  that  function,  but  can  be  performed  by  any  member, 
corresponding  in  this  to  the  custom  in  the  Synagogue.  As  a  rule,  there- 
fore, the  prayer  was  a  free  one,  like  the  other  contributions  to  the  edifi- 
cation of  the  assembly. 


§  14]  PRAYER   AND   PRAISE  213 

ticular  congregation,  attained  in  time  to  a  more  general 
reception,  and  thus  Christian  psalmody  —  or,  more  gen- 
erally, the  Christian  liturgy  —  was  consolidated. 

G.  We  do  not  altogether  lack  examples  of  such  early  Chris- 
tian psalms.  Weizsacker  (op.  cit.  pp.  557  sq.)  supposes  with  good 
reason  that  several  of  the  "  odes  "  incorporated  in  the  Apocalypse 
were  originally  in  current  use  in  the  Church.  The  suggestion 
is  the  more  plausible  when  we  recognize  that  the  heavenly 
worship  depicted  in  the  Apocalypse  is  in  many  respects  the 
coimterpart  of  the  Lord's  Day  service  of  the  Christian  assembly 
on  earth.  Though  this  picture  of  a  divine  service  in  heaven 
(cc.  4-10)  does  not  inform  us  either  fully  or  precisely  about 
the  character  of  early  Christian  worship,  it  is  exceedingly  valu- 
able as  a  supplement  to  1  Cor.  —  a  supplement  which  corrects 
in  some  respects  the  impression  one  is  apt  to  receive  from  the 
hints  of  that  epistle.  It  depicts  a  solemn  and  formal  wor- 
ship which  is  at  the  same  time  the  expression  of  the  utmost 
spontaneity.  In  the  congregation  each  member  occupies  his 
due  place  (4 :  4,  6  ;  5  :  11 ;  7  : 9) ;  and  the  service  itself  is  devel- 
oped in  orderly  sequence.  It  would  be  rash  to  follow  the 
analogy  in  great  detail,  but  in  the  main  the  order  seems  to 
coiTespond  with  that  of  1  Cor.  14 :  26.  First  an  opening  psalm 
of  praise  (4  :  8-11) ;  then  the  opening  of  the  "  book  "(5:1  sq.), 
that  is,  the  lections  from  the  Old  Testament,  —  which  St.  Paul 
does  not  mention  because  the  mere  reading  was  not  an  exer- 
cise of  a  spiritual  gift.  This  part  of  the  service,  however, 
can  be  understood  almost  as  a  matter  of  course  (cf.  Weizsacker, 
pp.  571  sq.) ;  and  it  may  explain  why  in  St.  Paul's  enumeration 
teaching  precedes  prophecy,  for  it  is  probable  that  the  former 
was  occupied  chiefly  with  the  interpretation  of  the  passages 
that  were  read.  It  seems  as  though  seven  lections  were 
here  indicated,  but  the  mystical  number  is  hardly  significant  of 
the  actual  practice.  The  fact  that  the  interpretations  are  here 
all  of  a  prophetic  character  is  explained  by  the  character  of  the 
book.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Old  Testament  Psalms, 
like  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  as  a  whole,  were  commonly 
in  use  in  the  Church,  and  it  is  likely  that  they  are  included 


214  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR   INSTRUCTION  [III 

under  the  "spiritual  psalms,  hymns  and  songs"  mentioned  in 
Ephes.  and  Col.  "  The  prayers  of  the  saints  "  are  representatively 
offered  to  God  on  two  occasions  (5:8;  8  : 3,  4)  ;  and  the  whole 
service  is  interspersed,  or  rather  bound  together,  by  songs  of 
praise  ((oS^q),  which  are  rendered  responsively  by  various  choirs  — 
that  is,  by  the  different  classes  of  human  and  angelic  crea- 
tures that  compose  the  assembly.  This  latter  feature  —  the 
mode  of  rendering  the  musical  parts  of  the  service  —  we  can 
confidently  recognize  as  a  reflection  of  the  practice  of  the 
Church  —  the  more  especially  as  it  agrees  with  the  earliest 
direct  testimony  on  this  subject,  viz.  Pliny's  report  that  the 
Christians  were  accustomed  carmenque  Christo  quasi  Deo  cli- 
cere  secum  invicem.  This  orderly  and  even  formal  service  is 
evidently  regarded  by  the  author  as  the  ideal  of  Christian 
worship ;  and  if  a  similar  order  was  not  actually  realized  in 
the  Church,  it  was  not  because  the  school  of  John  or  the  school 
of  Paul  was  unfavorable  to  it, 

Weizsiicker  remarks  that  the  short  songs  incorporated  in 
the  introduction  to  the  vision  (Ptev.  cc.  4-10)  only  once  allude 
particularly  to  the  situation  there  depicted  (viz.  the  reference 
in  5  : 9  to  the  opening  of  the  book  with  the  seven  seals),  while 
for  the  rest  they  display  in  the  most  general  terms  the  char- 
acter of  the  Church's  praise  to  God  and  to  Christ,  the  Lamb. 
First  we  have  the  song  of  the  four  living  creatures  (4:8): 

Holy,  Holy,  Holy  Lord  !  God,  the  Omnipotent  ! 
which  was  and  which  is  and  which  is  to  come  ! 

In  response  to  this  the  four  and  twenty  elders  sing  (4:11): 

Worthj'^  art  Thou,  our  Lord  and  our  God, 

to  receive  the  glory  and  the  honor  and  the  power : 

for  Thou  didst  create  all  things, 

and  because  of  Thy  will  they  were,  and  were  created. 

Next  the  four  cherubim  and  the  four  and  twenty  elders  sing 
together  before  the  Lamb  "  a  new  song  "  (5  : 9,  10)  : 

Worthy  art  Thou  to  take  the  Book, 
and  to  open  the  seals  thereof  : 

for  Thou  wast  slain,  and  didst  purchase  unto  God  with 
Thy  blood 


§14]  PRAYER  AND  PRAISE  215 

men  of  every  tribe,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation, 
and  madest  them  unto  our  God  a  kingdom  and  priests, 
and  they  reign  upon  the  earth. 

Then  all  the  heavenly  hosts  answer  with  a  great  voice  (5:12): 

Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  hath  been  slain, 
to  receive  the  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  might, 
and  honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing. 

And  finally  all  creatures  in  heaven  and  earth  (5:13): 

Unto  Him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne 
and  unto  the  Lamb, 

the  blessing,  and  the  honor,  and  the  glory,  and  the  domin- 
ion 
to  the  ages  of  the  ages. 

And  the  cherubim  respond,  Amen. 

Of  like  general  character  is  the  song  of  the  victors  in  the 
fight  with  the  beast,  which  is  called  "  the  song  of  Moses  the 
servant  of  God,  and  the  song  of  the  Lamb  "  (15 : 3,  4) : 

Great  and  marvelous  are  Thy  works, 

0  Lord  God,  the  Omnipotent ; 

righteous  and  true  are  Thy  ways. 

King  of  the  ages. 

Who  shall  not  fear,  0  Lord,  and  glorify  Thy  Name  ? 

For  Thou  only  art  holy  ; 

for  all  nations  shall  come  and  worship  before  Thee ; 

for  Thy  righteous  acts  have  been  made  manifest. 

Similar  to  the  above  is  also  one  of  the  songs  interspersed  in  the 
course  of  the  prophecy  (11:15-18).  "Great  voices"  are  heard 
in  heaven,  saying : 

The  kingdom  of  the  world  has  become  the  kingdom  of  our 

Lord  and  of  His  Christ : 
and  He  shall  reign  unto  the  ages  of  the  ages. 

Then  the  four  and  twenty  elders  respond  : 

We  give  thanks  unto  Thee,  Lord,  God,  the  Omnipotent, 

which  art  and  which  wast ; 

because  Thou  hast  taken  Thy  great  power,  and  didst  reign. 

And  the  nations  were  wroth, 

then  came  Thy  wrath, 


216  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

aud  the  time  for  the  dead  to  be  judged, 

and  to  give  their  reward  to  Thy  servants, 

to  the  prophets  and  to  the  saints 

and  to  them  that  fear  Thy  Name, 

the  small  and  the  great, 

and  to  destroy  them  that  destroy  the  earth. 

Weizsacker  supposes  that  the  psalms  attributed  in  the  third 
Gospel  to  Mary,  Zacharias,  and  Simeon  were  also  taken  from 
the  psalter  of  the  Church.  But  in  any  case  they  may  be  taken 
to  illustrate  the  character  of  early  Christian  psalmody.  We 
may  be  sure  that  this  Hebrew  form  of  sacred  poesy  was  uni- 
versally adopted  in  the  Gentile  Churches,  for  the  same  charac- 
ter is  impressed  upon  all  the  hymns  of  the  Catholic  liturgies. 
The  fundamental  tone  of  Christian  worship  is  represented  by 
these  psalms  of  praise.  In  the  midst  of  heav}^  toil  and  tribula- 
tion the  dominant  feeling  was  thankfulness  for  God's  gracious 
gifts,  confidence  in  thp  ultimate  victory,  and  glad  expectancy 
of  the  divine  consummation. 

Among  the  ancient  hymns  which  are  still  in  use,  there  is 
none  perhaps  that  reflects  so  perfectly  both  the  form  and  spirit 
of  apostolic  psalmody  as  the  Gloria  in  excelsis,  which,  in  its 
original  form,  as  the  morning  hymn  of  the  Eastern  Churches, 
can  be  traced  back  to  the  early  part  of  the  second  century.  But 
if  we  can  disabuse  our  minds  of  the  hard  and  fast  distinction 
we  now  make  between  hymns  and  prayers,  we  shall  be  able  to 
recognize  that  certain  of  the  fraycrs  of  the  liturgy  are  at  least 
closely  akin  to  the  early  Christian  psalms.  Prayer  is  an  ex- 
alted mood,  and  in  all  its  parts,  but  especially  in  the  part  of  praise 
it  demands  exalted  expression.  Wliat  we  vaguely  call  liturgical 
language  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  variety  of  sacred  poetry.  Prayer 
is  ever  the  most  spontaneous  variety  of  poetry,  but  in  thanksgiv- 
ing to  God  for  his  unspeakable  gift  in  Christ  Jesus  it  reaches 
an  exalted  mood  which  is  only  to  be  satisfied  by  musical 
expression.  This  is  true  especially  of  the  thanksgiving  or 
Eucharist  par  excellence. :  the  prayer  of  "blessing"  at  the  sacra- 
mental meal  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  most  ancient  constitu- 
ent of  the  liturgy,  and  retains  in  the  main  its  original  form,  in 
spite  of  the  medieval  misapprehension  of  its  spirit  and  inten- 


§  U]  PRAYER   AND  PRAISE  217 

tion.  The  prayer  as  a  loliole  may  properly  be  regarded  as  a 
psalm,  notwithstanding  that  the  greater  part  is  recited  by  the 
leader  alone.  There  is  no  part  of  the  Chm-ch's  worship  which 
more  plainly  demands  musical  utterance,  and  the  prejudice  of 
the  Eeformed  Churches  in  prescribing  the  prosaic  utterance 
of  all  prayers  by  the  officiating  minister  nowhere  appears  so 
narrow,  so  plainly  unjustifiable,  as  here.  One  cannot  fail  to 
note  the  likeness  between  this  great  Eucharistic  prayer  and 
the  "  Odes  "  quoted  above  from  the  Apocalypse :  it  is  conceived 
in  the  very  spirit,  and  expressed  in  the  very  form,  of  early 
Christian  psalmody.  First  comes  the  Sursum  corda,  the  respon- 
sive song  of  priest  and  people ;  next  the  psalm  uttered  by  the 
priest  as  representative  of  all ;  then  the  doxology  of  priest  and 
people  together  —  the  Ter  sanctus.  This  so-called  Preface 
at  least  is  still  appropriately  intoned  with  formal  melody  by  the 
Lutheran  and  a  considerable  part  of  the  Anglican,  as  well  as  by 
the  Eoman  and  Greek  Churches.  But  properly  this  is  only  the 
beginning  of  the  Eucharistic  prayer,  which  rises  ever  in  crescendo 
to  the  supreme  note  of  thanksgiving  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Canon  (the  "  All  glory  be  to  thee  "  of  the  English  liturgy),  where 
the  redemption  of  the  world  through  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
is  commemorated  (including  a  recital  of  his  institution  of  the 
sacrament).  The  unity  of  the  Eucharistic  prayer  has  been 
destroyed  and  its  significance  obscured  by  the  separation  of  the 
Canon  from  the  Preface.  The  separation  never  was  formally 
expressed  in  the  text  of  the  Eastern  liturgies,  and  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  Ptoman  Missal  was  occasioned  in  the  first  place 
merely  by  the  introduction  of  the  "  proper  prefaces  "  :  but  for  all 
that,  theory  and  practice  combined  to  make  the  distinction  a 
very  marked  one.  Having  lost  the  idea  that  the  blessing  or 
thanksgiving  (the  blessing  of  Ood  being  always  understood)  was 
itself  the  sole  and  sufficient  consecration,  the  Eastern  Churches 
added  an  express  prayer  of  consecration,  together  with  other 
petitions  that  interrupted  the  pure  note  of  praise  ;  and  the  Latin 
Church  came  to  regard  the  words  of  institution  as  a  magic 
formula  of  consecration.  The  result  is,  that  the  Canon  is  uni- 
versally regarded,  not  as  a  continuation  of  the  prayer  of  thanks- 
giving, but  as  an  historical  recitation  (if  not  a  magic  formula), 


218  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR   INSTRUCTION  [TIT 

followed  by  various  petitions.  The  whole  of  it  is  consequently 
recited  secrete^  or  at  least  in  a  "  tone "  different  from  that  of 
the  Preface.  The  present  English  liturgy  (since  1552)  sepa- 
rates the  two  parts  of  the  Eucharistic  prayer  more  formally  and 
definitely  than  does  any  other  use.  The  "  prayer  of  humble 
access,"  which  is  inserted  in  the  very  midst  of  it,  breaks  the  con- 
tinuity of  thanksgiving,  and  after  it  the  tone  of  praise,  if  it  be 
resumed  at  all  in  the  Canon,  must  perforce  be  pitched  many 
notes  lower.  The  Catholic  misapprehension  of  the  Canon  is 
ultimately  responsible  for  the  fact  that  the  Eeformed  Churches 
have  lost  the  idea  of  the  Eucharistic  prayer  altogether,  and 
recite  the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  sacrament  not  as 
a  part  of  thanksgiving,  but  merely  as  a  Scripture  lesson.  As 
such  it  is  by  many  accounted  essential  to  the  rite  —  though 
upon  what  grounds,  it  would  be  hard  to  say.  This  notion  seems 
to  be  admitted,  and  it  is  certainly  not  excluded,  by  the  so- 
called  Lambeth  Quadrilateral. 

§  15,   THE   GIFT   OF   TEACHING 

So  far  as  concerns  the  problem  of  Church  organization 
and  the  character  of  the  Christian  ministry,  the  chief 
interest  of  the  foregoing  discussion  lies  in  the  fact  that 
prayer  and  praise,  the  components  of  worship,  were 
the  expression  of  individual  gifts^  —  that  is,  either  super- 
natural endowments  or  natural  talents,  as  we  should 
distinguish  them ;  but  spiritual  manifestations  both  of 
them,  according  to  the  early  conception ;  the  gracious 
gifts  of  God  {charismata)  for  the  edification  of  the  Eccle- 
sia.  The  gift  that  was  expressed  in  the  worship  of  the 
assembly  may  be  denominated  the  gift  of  teaching^  to 
use  the  word  in  its  most  general  sense.  The  most  gen- 
eral antithesis  to  this  is  the  gift  of  minidrfj,  under  which 
category  we  may  class  all  the  remaining  charismata,  the 
practical  gifts  of  miracles,  healings,  helps,  etc.  It  was 
the  teaching  gift  alone,  though  in  various  manifesta- 


§15]  THE   GIFT   OF   TEACHING  219 

tions,  that  came  to  expression  in  the  assembly.  The 
gift  of  teaching,  taken  in  a  specific  sense,  is  distin- 
guished by  St.  Paul  from  the  gift  of  prophecy,  as  well 
as  from  the  gift  of  tongues  and  the  gift  of  interpreta- 
tion ;  and  yet  it  is  evident  that  all  of  these  parts,  which 
are  enumerated  in  1  Cor.  14  :  26  as  contributions  to  the 
instruction  of  the  asseinWy,  may  be  xegar_^  as  various 
expressions  of  a<^neral  gift  of  teaching^^)  No  other- 
wise is  it  in  the  case  of  the  "  psalm, '  which  is  the  only 
other  contribution  mentioned  in  this  passage  :  the  whole 
tenor  of  St.  Paul's  treatment  of  the  subject  proves  that 
this,  too,  was  regarded  as  an  expression  of  the  gift  of 
teaching,  and  we  may  accept  this  conclusion  with  the 
greater  assurance  because  no  mention  is  made  of  a  spe- 
cific gift  of  psalmody.  That  is  to  say,  the  worship  of 
!the  Church,  no  less  than  the  instruction,  was  conducted 
by  men  who  were  accounted  teachers  in  the  assembly  — 
"  first  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers  "  (in 
ithe  narrower  sense)  —  and  the  right  they  had  to  suchU 
[leadership  was  solely  in  virtue  of  their  teaching  gifts.  ' 
"T  have  used  the  title  "  Conduct  of  the  Assembly " 
for  lack  of  a  better  one,  but  of  course  it  must  not  be 
taken  to  imply  that  in  the  stage  of  development  de- 
picted in  1  Cor.  there  was  any  formally  constituted  • 
conductor  of  the  proceedings :  _the  assembly  evidently  7 
conducted  itself,  under  the  informal  leadership  of  such  j 
persons  as  possessed  the  gifts  of  teaching.^ 

But  when  there  did  come  to  be  developed  a  formal 
presidency  in  the  assembly  —  that  is,  when  the  bishops 
acquired  the  presidency  in  the  assembly  for  instruction 
as  well  as  in  that  for  the  Eucharist  —  it  must  have  been, 
partly  at  least,  in  view  of  his  teaching  gifts  that  such 

^  But  for  the  bishop's  function  of  leadership  in  the  Euchuristic  as- 
sembly, see  §  21 . 


220  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

an  officer  was  chosen.  Indeed,  the  presidency  must 
have  been  conceded  only  to  such  as  possessed  the  highest 
gifts  which  were  at  the  time  available  in  the  local 
community.  It  was  a  fundamental  and  deeply  rooted 
conception  in  the  Church,  that  all  leadership,  all  au-i 
thority,  belonged  to  the  teaching  gift,  the  teaching 
office,  as  such  :  hence,  even  at  the  beginning  of  the 
second  century,  the  ordinary  president  was  obliged  to 
give  place  to  any  one,  such  as  an  apostle  or  prophet, 
who  boasted  higher  gifts.^ 

In   the  course  of   the  following    sections   it  will  be 
showed    that  all    administration  in  the   Church,  even 
the    financial  administration,  belonged  as  a  matter  of 
principle  to  the  teaching  office  as  such.     At  this  point 
we  have  only  to  note  that  the  administration  of  wor- 
s^^3- the  cultus,  if   that  term  may  be  used  for  the 
early  period  —  was  a  function  of  the  teaching  gift,  and 
could  be  intrusted  to  no  one  but  a  teacher.     It  is  neces- 
sary to  insist  upon  this  point,  because  the  prevailing  the- 
ory assumes  that  worship  (the  cultus)  and  teaching  are 
natural  contraries,  and  that  the  liturge  of  the  assembly 
(the  bishop)  can  be  such  only  by  formal  (legal)  right. 
Teachinii;  and  administration  —  administration    of   all 
sorts,  liturgical,  disciplinary,  financial  —  are  regarded 
as    contrasted    functions ;    and    the    teaching    offices  .^ 
(apostles,   prophets,  evangelists,  teachers),  regarded  as;!l 
charismatic,  are  opposed  to  the  administrative   (bish-   ' 
ops,  presbyters,  deacons),  which  are  accounted  of  purely  ■ 
legal  constitution.^     It  is  represented  that  the  bishops  ^ 
and  deacons  had  no  share  in  teaching  ;  and  if  this  were 

2  Cf .  DidacJie,  x.  7,  xi.  passim.  In  xv.  1  the  bishops  and  deacons  are 
to  be  appointed  to  perform  the  ministry  of  prophets  and  teachers  —  that 
is,  when  no  prophet  is  present,  xiii.  4. 

3  So  Hatch,  — while  Harnack  admits  that  the  bishops  were  chosen  not 
without  reference  to  their  charismatic  endowments. 


§  15]  THE    GIFT   OF   TEACHING  221 

SO,  the  consequence  could  hardly  be  avoided  that  the 
existence  of  such  offices  implied  from  the  first  a  legal 
organization.  The  facts,  however,  do  not  bear  out  this 
claim,  for  it  appears  that  teaching  was  ever  a  promi- 
nent function  of  the  bishop's  office,  and  we  have  seen 
that  even  in  the  conduct  of  worship  he  was  performing 
the  service  of  the  prophets  and  teachers.* 

The  various  contributions  to  the  edification  of  the 
assembly  which  are  enumerated  in  1  Cor.  14  :  26  are 
all  of  them  functions  of  the  gift  of  teaching,  but  we 
need  look  for  no  correspondence  in  detail  between 
them  and  the  teaching  offices.  There  was,  for  instance, 
no  office  charged  peculiarly  with  the  composition  of 
prayers  and  psalms,  this  being  a  function  which  might  be 
discharged  by  any  of  the  teaching  offices.  The  apostles 
were  equipped  with  all  the  spiritual  gifts  in  their  ful- 
ness :  St.  Paul  therefore  could  ''  Pray  with  the  spirit," 

*  The  early  age  knew  nothing  of  a  jus  liturgicum  as  belonging  to  the 
bishop  or  to  any  other  officer  :  it  knew  only  of  a  liturgical  charisma,  by 
virtue  of  which  certain  persons  —  many  or  few  —  were  empowered  to 
lead  the  worship  of  the  assembly.  When  definite  liturgical  forms  began 
to  be  fixed  by  tradition,  the  higher  sort  of  teachers  were  still  free  to  exer- 
cise their  gifts  of  prayer  ;  but  they  claimed  no  right  to  impose  forms  of 
prayer  upon  others  {jus  liturgicum),  free  reception  on  the  part  of  the  as- 
sembly being  the  only  way  in  which  a  customary  use  might  be  established. 
Such  an  use  being  established,  it  was  no  breach  of  principle  (no  quench- 
ing of  the  spirit)  to  enjoin  it  upon  all  who  were  not  distinguished  by 
special  gifts  of  prayer.  The  situation  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  is  illustrated  by  the  Didache,  x.  7  :  "  Permit  the  prophets,  how- 
ever, to  give  thanks  as  much  as  they  will,"  — that  is,  instead  of  following 
the  Eucharistic  prayer  prescribed  for  others.  To  this  Harnack  flippantly 
remarks,  "  In  der  D.  gelten  die  Propheten  als  die  virtuosen  (!)  des 
Dankegebets."  The  early  Catholic  bishop  had  certainly  less  liberty  in 
this  respect  than  the  prophet :  his  authority  over  the  liturgy  must  have 
been  limited  to  such  adaptation  of  the  material  as  the  occasion  might 
require  —  a  right  which  any  intelligent  leader  of  worship  might  be 
assumed  to  possess.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  bishop  mi 
do  as  a  prophet  or  teacher  what  iu  vii'tue  of  his  episcopal  office  he  m 
not  do. 


;  be  I 
ight  1 
ioht.l 


222  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

could  "  sing  with  the  spirit,"  he  gloried  in  his  "  visions 
and   revelations,"    and    boasted    that    he   spoke   with 
tongues  more  than  they  all,  while  the  gift  of  teaching 
in   the  more  specific  sense  is   exemplified  in   all   his 
epistles.      The    prophets,    too,   as   we    must    suppose, 
though   they  were   named    for  the  highest   gift   they 
^'possessed,  must  often  have  exhibited  the  lower  gifts, — 
j  namely,  tongues,  interpretations,  and  especially  teach- 
I  ing.     The  "teachers"  lacked  only  the  power  of  speak- 
ing in    the   spirit :  but   this  distinguished    rather   the 
character  of  their  inspiration  than  the  matter  of  their 
discourse,  and  we  must  suppose  that  they  were  gifted 
with  an  aptitude  for  prayer  as  well  as  for  all  the  parts 
of  instruction. 

Instruction  —  whether  in  a  tongue  with  its  interpre- 
tation, by  revelation,  or  with  the  understanding  alone 
— included  a  great  variety  of  parts.  The  word  "  doc- 
trine "  (SiSaxf],  SiSao-KaXCa),  as  it  is  used  in  the  New 
Testament  and  in  the  later  Christian  literature,  in- 
cludes of  course  what  we  now  exclusively  denote  by 
that  word  —  that  is,  theoretical  instruction  about  the 
nature  of  God  and  his  relation  to  the  universe,  —  but 
it  also  includes  much  more.  In  the  theoretical  part 
of  doctrine,  which  we  may  call  theology,  St.  Paul 
distinguishes  "the  word  of  wisdom"  [Xoyos  cro(f)ia^) 
and  "  the  word  of  knowledge "  {\6yo<;  yv(ocre(o<;).^  It 
is  not  necessary,  however,  to  inquire  here  into  the 
force  of  this  distinction,  for  it  is  not  doctrine  on  its 
theological  or  philosophical  side  that  can  account  for 
the  leading  authority  of  the  teaching  office  over  the 
order  and  administration  of  the  Church.     The  words 

*  1  Cor,  12 :  8.  In  14  :  6  he  distinguishes  "  knowledge  "  (yvdxris)  as 
a  particular  sort  of  teaching.  For  the  distinction  see  Weizs'acker's  rather 
inconclusive  discussion,  op.  cit.  pp.  559  sq. 


§  15]  THE   GIFT  OF   TEACHING  223 

SiSaxT]  and  StSacr/caXta,  commonly  translated  by  "  doc- 
trine" in  our  Authorized  Version,  denoted  teaching 
in  the  broadest  sense  :  Christian  faith  was  but  one  side  j 
of  this  teaching,  £liristian  moral^-^as  the  other,  and/i 
under  this  latter  term  we  have  to  include  the  whole)' 
doctrine  of  Church  order.  Both  of  these  words  were 
used  as  titles  of  the  Church  ordinances  of  the  second 
and  third  centuries  (AtSa;)^^  tov  Kvptov  Sta  rcjv  aTrocrTo- 
\(ov,  AtSacr/caXta  r.  a-rr.,  k.  t.  X.),  though  these  writings 
contain  little  or  no  theology,  and  mingle  moral  pre- 
cepts with  regulations  about  worship,  government, 
and  discipline.  It  was  characteristic  of  all  the  early 
canonical  legislation  of  the  Church  that  it  made  no 
formal  distinction  between  canons  relating  to  faith, 
morals,  and  discipline :  the  distinction  is  altogether  a 
modern  one,  it  was  first  made  in  the  decrees  of  the  \ 
Council  of  Trent.  The  early  usage  corresponds  with 
the  Scriptural  conception :  the  apostolic  notion  of 
doctrine  was  exceeding  broad,  and  the  doctrine  of 
Church  order  was  an  inseparable  part  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christian  conduct  as  a  whole  —  or  morality  (cf . 
Tit.  2  :  1  sqq.) 

The  latter  sort  of  doctrine  is  intimated  in  1  Cor.  4  :  17, 
where  St.  Paul  says  that  he  sent  Timothy,  "  who  shall 
put  you  in  remembrance  of  my  ways  (680V9)  in  Christ, 
even  as  I  teach  (StSao-zcw)  everywhere  in  every  Church." 
The  teaching  here  has  to  do  with  manners  and  cus-j 
toms ;  the    "  ways "    (oSot)   are   the    precepts   relative  ' 
thereto.     This  kind  of  teaching  bears  a  likeness  —  cer- 
tainly not  altogether  fanciful  —  to  the  Jewish  halacha, 
its  Christian  character  being  here  marked  by  the  ad-/ 
junct  "  in  Christ."     We  find  the  same  thing  again  in 
the  "  traditions  "  (TrapaSocret?)  which  the  apostle  deliv- 
ered to   the  Corinthians  (1    Cor.   11  :  2),  and  in  the 


224  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

"charges"  {Trapayyekiai)  which  he  gave  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  (1  Thess.  4  :  2).     Such  teaching  as  this  occupies  I 
a  large  place  in  St.  Paul's  epistles,  and  we  may  sapposefi 
that  it  constituted  still  more  prominent  a  part  of  the(\ 
instruction  imparted  in  the  assemblies.     Pliny's  account 
of  the  Christian  assembly  seems  to  indicate  that  even 
in  the  second  century  practical  moral  exhortation  was  J 
the  predominant  element  of  Church  instruction:  seque\ 
Sacramento  non  in  scelics  aliquod  ohstringere,  sed  ne  furta, 
etc.  —  for  sacramentuni  can  here  mean  nothing  else  than, 
the  binding  moral  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood. 

To  understand  the  practical  bearing  of  the  teaching 
gift  upon  the   minutest   details   of   Church  order,  we 
must    recognize    the  particidarity    of    early    Christian 
teaching.     The  highest  aspect  of  the  gift  of  teaching 
was  the  ability  to  impart  instruction  about  the  general 
principles  of  theology  and   morality,  and  it  was  this 
that  gave  the  teachers  their  preeminent  place  in  the 
assembly — but  it  was  not  this  that  gave  them  author- 
ity over  the  practical  administration  of   the  Church. 
iA    perfectly    consequent    outcome,     however,    of    the 
I  teaching  gift  in  its  highest  phase,  was  the  ability  to 
deduce   from   the   general   principles   of    morality    the 
jparticular  precepts  which  should  regulate  the  conduct 
of   Christian  life  in  all  its  details,  and  then  to  ajjpli/ 
Ithese  precepts  to  the  individual  case  and  to  the  par- 
llticular  person.    There  was  no  action  too  insignificant 
to  come  within  the  scope  of  the  teacher's  authority, 
and  no  matter  so  important  that  it  might  not  be  de- 
cided by  his  voice. 

This  practical  exercise  of  the  teaching  gift  appears, 
for    example,^    in    what    St.     Paul    calls    admonition 

^  Other  and  more  particular  examples  are  noticed  below  in  this  section, 
—  such  as  designation  to  ofl5ce,  and  the  express  functions  of  discipline 


§  15]  THE   GIFT   OF   TEACHING  225 

(vovdearia).  Admonition  is  merely  an  instance  of/ 
the  application  of  moral  teaching  to  a  particular! 
case.  Examples  of  St.  Paul's  admonitions  are  fur- 
nished by  his  epistles,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  they 
were  more  frequent  and  direct  when  he  was  present 
in  the  midst  of  the  congregations.  In  this  connection, 
however,  it  is  sufficient  to  consider  his  use  of  the  word. 
In  Col.  1 :  28  he  represents  himself  and  his  fellow 
apostles  as  "  admonishing  every  man  and  teaching 
every  man  in  all  wisdom"  —  and  this  as  a  part  of  the 
proclamation  of  Christ.  He  apologizes  politely  for  the 
admonitions  which  he  addresses  to  the  disciples  at 
Rome,  recognizing  that  they  "  are  filled  with  all  knotvl- 
edge,  and  able  also  to  admonish  one  another  ; "  but 
he  writes  the  more  boldly  because  of  the  grace  given 
him  of  God  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  unto  the 
Gentiles.  Admonition^as  undoubtedly  a  function  of  | ' 
the  teaching  office :  not  only  is  it  associated  in  these 
passages  with  teaching,  but  it  is  regarded  as  the  fruit  j 
of  tvisdom  and  knowledge,  even  as  the  special  outcome  of  1 
a  God-given  grace.  It  was  exercised,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  chiefly  by  the  leaders  of  the  community :  so 
St.  Paul  says  in  1  Thess.  6 :  12,  "  We  beseech  you  to 
know  them  that  labor  among  you,  and  are  over  you  in 
the  Lord,  and  admpnish^jmi."  Admonition  is  a  prin- 
cipal part  of  the  cure  of  souls,  and  it  is  to  be  exercised 
consequently  in  the  spirit  of  gentleness :  hence  St.  Paul 
admonishes  the  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  4  :  14)  "as  beloved 
children." "'     Like  every  other  part  of  teaching,  how- 

(excommunication  and  absolution)  which  may  be  conceived  of  as  parts  of 
admonition.  The  administration  of  the  material  or  financial  concerns 
of  the  Church  is  considered  in  §  20. 

'  Of.  2  Thess.  3  :  15.  In  2  Tim.  4  :  2  some  of  the  functions  of  an 
authoritative  teacher  —  in  this  case  an  evangelist — are  enumerated: 
"  Preach  the  word ;  be  instant  in  season,  out  of  season  ;  reprove,  rebuke, 

15 


226  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [lU 

ever,  admonition  was  exercised  in  virtue  of  the  gift, 
not  of  the  office :  every  member  was  consequently  free 
to  admonish,  but  the  disciphnary  effect  of  the  admoni- 
tion depended  in  any  case  upon  its  reception  by  the 
assembly ;  that  is,  upon  the  recognition  that  the  re- 
proof was  deserved. 

Admonition  or  reproof   might,   of  course,  be  given 
in  private,  but  it  was  only  public  reproof  in  the  assem- 
bly that   could  have  practical  disciplinary  effect.     In 
1  Tim.  5 :  19,  20  the  Evangelist  is  cautioned  to  accept 
no  accusation  against  an  elder  except  on  the  testimony 
of  two  or  three  witnesses  ;  but  this  evidence  being  fur- 
nished, the  sinning  elders  are  to  be  reproved  "  in  the 
sight  of  all."     In  2  Cor.  2  :  6  St.  Paul  says, "  Sufficient  to 
such  an  one  is  this  rebuke  by  the  majority  "  (17  eVin/xta 
a.vTy]  7}  vTTo  Toiv  nXeiovcov)  —  that  is  to  say,  the  majority 
had  assented  to  the  rebuke  administered  and  to  the 
consequent  punishment  (excommunication).      Admoni-  | 
tion  belonged  especially  to  the  spiritually  gifted  teach-  | 
ers,  hence  in  Gal.  6:1  it  is  said,  "  Brethren,  even  if  a  p 
man  be  overtaken  in  any  trespass,  ye  that  are  spiritual   ^ 
amend  him  in  the  spirit  of  meekness."  ^    Yet  the  whole 
assembly  was  thought  of  as  cooperating,  and  St.  Paul 
therefore  exhorts  the  brethren  of  Thessalonica  in  gen- 
eral (1  Thess.  5  :  14)  to  "  admonish  the  disorderly."  ^ 

exhort,  with  all  longsuffering  and  teaching.'^  —  It  needs  to  be  observed 
that  exhortation  is  as  much  a  part  of  "  doctrine  "  as  is  admonition  or  re- 
proof :  it  is  not  considered  here,  only  for  the  reason  that  it  has  no  relation 
to  discipline  — cf.  1  Tim.  4:  13;  5:1;  6:2;  2  Tim.  4  :  2. 

8  All  reproof,  and  even  the  extremest  punishment  (1  Cor.  5  :  5),  aimed 
at  the  amendment  or  restoration  of  the  offender. 

^  ®  Reproof  must  have  been  a  usual  part  of  the  exercises  of  the  assembly. 
We  learn  from  the  Didache  that  the  members  in  general  continued  to  ad- 
minister reproof  to  one  another  even  in  the  second  century :  ii.  7,  "  Thou 
shalt  hate  no  man,  but  some  reprove,  for  others  pray,  etc."  iv.  3,  "  Have 
no  respect  for  persons  in  reproving  for  sins."  xv.  3,  "  Reprove  one  another, 


§  15]  THE   GIFT   OF   TEACHING  227 

We  may  distinguish  two  sorts  of  admonition :  first, 
simple  reproof  ;  secondly,  admonition  to  penance,  im- 
plying exclusion  from  the  Eucharist,  later  called  excom- 
munication.^'^ The  former  might  be  administered  in 
public  as  well  as  in  private,  as  may  be  seen  in  the 
case  of  St.  Paul's  famous  rebuke  of  St.  Peter  (Gal.  2 : 
14,  "  I  said  unto  Cephas  before  all "),  as  well  as  in 
several  of  the  examples  cited  above.  But  even  pri- 
vate admonition,  if  unheeded,  led  to  public  rebuke 
and  discipline.  The  latter  could  be  administered  only 
in  the  assembly,  since  it  depended  upon  the  assent  of 
the  Church  for  its  effect.  The  rule  generally  followed 
was  that  enjoined  by  the  Lord  (Matt.  18  :  15-18)  :  "  If 
thy  brother  sin  against  thee,  go,  reprove  him  between 
thee  and  him  alone :  if  he  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained 
thy  brother.  But  if  he  hear  thee  not,  take  with  thee 
one  or  two  more,  that  at  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses 
or  three  every  word  may  be  established.     And  if  he 

not  ill  wrath,  but  in  peace."  It  was  a  function,  however,  which  was 
generally  devolved  upon  those  in  authority  —  cf.  2  Tim.  4:2;  Titus  1 :  9> 
13  ;  2  :  15. 

1"  Didache,  xiv.  2,  "  If  any  have  a  quarrel  with  his  fellow,  let  him  not 
join  you  (in  the  Eucharistic  assembly)  until  they  are  reconciled,  in  order 
that  your  sacrifice  may  not  be  profaned,"  —  cf.  Matt.  5  :  24.  The  word 
"  sacrifice  "  here  refers  to  the  prayers.  Cf .  in  the  homily  De  aleatoribus 
falsely  ascribed  to  Cyprian  (Harnack,  Texte,  V.  1,  p.  19):  "in  Doctrinis 
Apostolorum  (est)  :  se  quis  frater  delinquit  in  ecclesia  et  non  paret  legi, 
hie  non  coUigatur,  donee  poenitentiam  agat,  et  non  recipiatur,  ne  inqui- 
netur  et  impediatur  oratio  vestra,"  Didache,  xv.  3,  "  Reprove  one  another, 
not  in  wrath,  but  in  peace,  as  ye  have  it  in  the  Gospel  :  and  whosoever 
offends  his  fellow,  let  no  one  speak  to  him,  nor  let  him  hear  a  word  from 
you,  until  he  has  repented."  According  to  Justin  Martyr  (Apol.  i.  c.  66) 
none  but  a  baptized  person  "  who  lives  as  Christ  hath  taught  "  might  be 
admitted  to  the  Eucharist.  In  order  to  exclude  unrepentant  sinners,  a 
public  confession  of  sin  preceded  the  Eucharist  —  Didache,  xiv.  1.  Ex- 
clusion from  the  Eucharist  is  the  origin  of  all  the  later  ecclesiastical 
penalties.  The  bishop,  therefore,  as  the  conductor  of  the  Eucharist 
(§  21)  came  later  to  have  control  over  Church  discipline  in  general  and 
particularly  over  excommunication. 


■228  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

refuse  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  Church  (assembly) : 
a,ud  if  he  refuse  to  hear  the  Church  also,  let  him  be 
unto  thee  as  the  Gentile  and  the  publican.  Verily  I 
say  unto  you,  What  things  soever  ye  shall  bind  on 
earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven."  Here  the  practical 
exercise  of  discipline  (excommunication)  is  the  con- 
sequence of  admonitions  unheeded.  In  Titus  3:10 
we  have  the  injunction,  "  A  schismatic  man  after  a 
first  and  second  admonition  avoid."  Separation  from 
the  fellowship  of  the  Church,  in  the  case  of  any  but 
the  most  serious  offences,  was  to  last  only  until  the 
€ulprit  should  come  to  a  better  mind  :  2  Thess.  3 :  14, 
15,  "  And  if  any  man  obeyeth  not  our  word  by  this 
epistle,  note  that  man,  that  ye  may  have  no  company 
with  him,  to  the  end  that  he  may  be  ashamed.  And 
count  him  not  as  an  enemy,  but  admonish  him  as 
a  brother."  In  2  Cor.  13 :  1-3  St.  Paul  threatens 
:  that  on  his  return  to  Corinth  he  will  exercise  severe 
'discipline  against  offenders  ("I  will  not  spare"),  and 
in  this  connection  he  recalls  the  Lord's  rule  of  evidence, 
"  At  the  mouth  of  two  witnesses  or  three  every  word 
shall  be  established,"  cf.  1  Tim.  5 :  19. 

In  1  Cor.  5  :  3-5  we  have  a  curious  and  striking  con- 
firmation of  the  above  account  of  Church  discipline ;  it 
proves  at  once  the  absolute  authority  which  the  teacher 
claimed  in  this  matter,  and  the  necessity  for  the  coope- 
ration of  the  assemhli/  —  the  necessity,  indeed,  that  the 
admonition  and  discipline  be  exercised  in  the  assembly}'^ 
This  latter  condition  it  is  that  explains  the  curious 
phrasing  of  the  passage.  For  St.  Paul  could  not  be 
present  to  pronounce  his  rebuke  in  the  midst  of  the 

^1  It  is  indifferent  to  our  present  purpose  that  something  more  than 
exclusion  from  the  Christian  society  is  intended  in  this  case ;  namely, 
deliverance  unto  Satan  for  the  deMi-uction  of  the  flesh,— ci.  the  story  of 
Ananias  and  Sapphira,  Acts  5 : 1-11. 


§  15]  THE   GIFT   OF   TEACHING  229 

assembly  as  the  rule  required.  Yet  he  does  not  seek  to 
invalidate  the  rule,  nor  claim  exception  for  himself  as 
an  apostle :  he  claims  rather  that  he  is  conforming  to 
its  essential  conditions,  though  he  transgresses  the  formal 
precept.  He  recognizes  that  the  Church  is  a  spiritual 
assembly,  the  assembly  of  Christendom ;  therefore, 
though  absent  in  body  he  may  be  counted  present  in 
spirit  when  his  judgment  against  the  sinner  is  read 
in  the  assembly,  and  the  assembly  has  no  other  course 
but  to  assent  to  the  condemnation  —  or  repudiate  his 
authority.  This  much  being  explained  by  way  of  pref- 
ace, the  interpretation  of  the  passage  is  obvious :  "  For 
I  verily,  being  absent  in  body  but  present  in  spirit,  have 
already  as  prese7it  (019  irapcop)  judged  him  that  hath  so 
wrought  this  thing,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,^^  t/e 
heing  assenibled  and  my  spirit  with  the  power  of  our  Lord 
Jesus,  to  deliver  such  a  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the 
day  of  the  Lord."  ^^ 

^  This  phrase  perhaps  reflects  the  solemn  formula  with  which  the 
teachers  were  wont  to  preface  their  discourse.  Cf.  Weizsacker,  op.  cit. 
pp.  555,  582,  commenting  on  1  Cor.  12  :  3. 

13  After  the  development  of  the  episcopal  organization,  the  bishop  as 
conductor  of  the  Eucharist  and  teacher  of  the  congregation  exercised 
also  the  power  of  excommunication.  The  earliest  witness  is  Ignatius : 
EpJies.  6 : 1,  when  the  bishop  is  silent  he  is  the  more  to  be  feared ; 
Philad.  1  :  1,  2,  the  bishop's  silence  is  moi"e  effective  than  the  speech  of 
the  heretics,  for  the  congregation  is  attuned  to  his  commandments  like 
the  harp  to  its  strings;  —  Sniyrn.  7:2,  the  congregation  has  no  dealings 
with  the  hei'etics  either  in  public  or  private.  The  "silence"  of  the 
bishop  signifies  that  he  holds  not  (and  so  implicitly /or&iJs)  any  intercourse 
with  sinners:  and  the  congregation  follows  his  "commandments."  This 
at  least  is  Sohm's  interpretation  of  these  obscure  passages,  of  which 
Lightfoot  hardly  knows  what  to  make.  Cf.  Pseudo-Clement,  ad  Jacob. 
c.  18,  "whom  the  bishop  hates,  him  shall  also  the  members  of  the  con- 
gregation hate;  with  whom  the  bishop  does  not  speak,  with  him  shall 
the  members  of  the  congregation  also  refuse  to  speak;  whoever  remains 
a  friend  of  him  whom  the  bishop  hates,  and  speaks  to  him  with  whom 


230  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [UI 

J    St.  Paul  acted  here  in  his  capacity  as  teacher :  he  did 
what  any  other  teacher  might  have  done,  though  his 
/character  as  apostle,  and  his  personal  relation  to  the 
/Corinthian  Church  gave  the  greater  assurance  that  his 
[judgment  would  be  accepted.   (Admonition^^ith  all  its 
consequences  of  discipline,  belonged  tothe  teaching  of- 
fice as  such  —  to  the  pro^et  as  well  as  to  the  apostle, 
to  the  teacher  (in  the  narrower  sense)  as  well  as  to  the 
prophet.     Discipline,  being  the  consequence  of  admoni- 
tion, could  originate  nowhere  but  in  the  teaching  gift, 
whether  manifested  in  official  persons  or  not.     Later 
this  authority  was  exercised  almost  exclusively  by  the 
I  j  bishops,  as   the  teachers  of  the   Church  by  apostolic 
succession. 

To  understand  the  prophets'  part  in  discipline  we 

f/need  to  remember  of  course  that  prophecy  was  more 

^  than  mere  prediction  of  futurity;  but  it  is  still  more 

important   to   note    the  jparticularity  of   the   prophetic 

fmessage.     Prophecy  depends  always  upon   revelation, 

'  whether  by  vision  or  by  voice ;  it  represents,  that  is, 

conclusions  that  are  not  reached  by  the  natural  processes 

of  reasoning,  and  it  is  this  which  most  fundamentally 

distinguishes  it  from  all  other  forms  of  teaching.     The 

revelation  might  foretell  a  future  event,  or  enunciate  a 

the  bishop  does  not  speak,  he  destroys  the  Church,"  Yet  even  in  the 
third  century  other  gifted  teachers  occasionally  assumed  the  authority 
of  excommunication.  Cf .  Eusebius  H.  E.  VI.  43,  20,  —  the  Roman 
bishop  Cornelius  fortifies  his  position  by  reference  to  the  fact  that 
already  the  martyr  Moses  had  excluded  Novatian  and  his  company 
from  communion.  Cyprian,  ep.  66,  —  the  martyr  Puppian  adraonislies 
Cyprian  to  penance  as  an  unworthy  bishop  and  breaks  off  communion 
with  him :  Cyprian  at  this  is  greatly  excited,  and  threatens  in  turn  to 
excommunicate  the  martyr  —  "  Dominum  meum  consulam,  an  tibi  pacem 
dare  et  te  ad  communicationem  ecclesiae  suae  admitti  .  .  .  permittat.'* 
Here  as  elsewhere  the  act  of  the  teacher  required  the  assent  of  the  con- 
gregation to  give  it  practical  effect. 


§  15]  THE   GIFT    OF   TEACHING  231 

doctrine ;  but  there  is  reason  to  suppose  that  Christian 
prophecy  more  commonly  dealt  with  the  practical  af- 
fairs of  the  moment,  supplying  an  authoritative  deci- 
sion in  questions  of  difficulty  or  dispute,  —  designating 
to  office,  directing  administration,  pronouncing  admoni- 
tion or  sentence  of  exclusion  against  offenders.^'*     Old 
Testament  prophecy,  too,  was  largely  of  this  character : 
Moses  was  the  lawgiver  of  Israel  in  virtue  of  his  pro- 
phetic gift;  Samuel  governed  the  people  as  Prophet; 
and  even  under  the  kings  the  prophets  frequently  in- 
terfered to  direct  the  policy  of  the  kingdom  and  the 
conduct  of  wars,  employing  particular  admonitions  and    / 
rebukes,  as  well  as  general  exhortations  to  righteous-  ' 
ness.     The  later  Jewish  prophecy  was  more  commonly 
apocalyptic  in  character,  and  it  is  from  that  we  get  our 
narrower  conception  of  the  function  of  the  prophetic 
gift.     Of  this  sort  is  the  Apocalypse,  the  most  conspicu- 
ous example  of  prophecy  in  the  New  Testament,  though 
even  there  we  may  observe  that  the  first  three  chapters  / 
are  occupied  almost  exclusively  with  practical  admoni-. 
tion.     Extensive  and  important  as  was  the  activity  of 
the  prophets  in  the  first  century,  we  have  but  scanty 
record  of  their  messages  ;  and  this  is  in  all  likelihood 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  prophetic  utterances  were  ad-  ^ 
dressed  so  particularly  ad  rem,  to  the  decision  of  the  | 
special  case  at  issue,  that  their  interest  hardly  outlived  I 
the    occasion    which    prompted   them.      The   influence 
of  prophecy  was  expended  upon  the  consolidation  of 
custom,    rather   than  upon  the  production  of  literary 
compositions. 

The    prophetic    voice   was   therefore   not    only   the  // 
most  direct   expression   of   God's  will,  but   commonly  i 
the  most  particular.     Hence  the  preeminent  authority 

^*  For  examples  see  the  next  section. 


232  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

of  the  prophets  as  the  lawgiversandjLdministrators  of] 
the  Ecclesia.  There  "waTTlo'lAitliority  of  higlier  in-' 
stance  than  the  prophet,  for  in  the  Ecclesia  there  was 
no  law  but  God's  will;  no  human  will  or  authority 
might  dominate,  —  not  even  human  law  regarded  as  an 
expression  of  the  corporate  will  of  the  congregation. 

"  Teaching  "  (8iSao-/caXta)  was  likewise  authoritative  ;•' 
but  it~^^"less  direct,  and  (t^ommonly  less  particular  ^ 
than  prophecy.  Its  business  was  the  exposition  and 
interpretation  of  the  word  of  God  as  given  in  the 
Scriptures  or  in  the  teaching  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  It 
furnished  no  new  revelation,  but  made  clear  the  signifi- 
cance and  practical  bearing  of  the  revelation  already 
given.  It  aimed  chiefly  at  instruction,  and  hence  it 
was  commonly  couched  in  general  terms :  it  expounded 
in  terms  of  rational  argument  the  general  principles 
which  must  regulate  Christian  life  and  Church  order. 
Sut  it,  too,  could  make  particular  application  of  the 
Scriptural  revelation  in  the  form  of  admonition.^^  At 
the  same  time,  didasJcalia  was  authoritative  teaching : 
whether  it  gave  ordinances  for  the  general  conduct 
of  congregational  life,  or  exercised  individual  cure  of 
souls  and  discipline,  it  did  all  in  virtue  of  a  divine  gift, 
by  divine  authority,  and  in  God's  name.^*^ 

1*  2  Tim.  3  :  16,  17  shows  that  the  whole  field  of  Christian  teaching 
was  open  to  the  StSao-KoXos  as  the  expounder  of  Scripture,  for  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  completely  furnished  him  for  every  good  work  of  teaching 
—  "for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  discipline  in  righteous- 
ness." Cf .  1  Cor.  10  :  11,  "  these  things  were  written  for  our  admoni- 
tion." For  one  of  many  instances  of  such  application  to  practical  Church 
issues  see  1  Cor.  9  :  9,  10. 

IS  Sohm  notes  (p.  41,  n.  8)  that  didaskalia  properly  denotes  such 
teaching  as  is  expressed  in  general  terms.  Cf.  1  Tim.  4:11,  "these 
things  command  and  teach  ;  "  6:2,  "these  things  teach  and  exhort."  The 
authoritative  character  of  didaskalia  is  shown  further  in  1  Tim.  5  :  7, 
"  command  these  things  "  —  with  reference  to  the  widows ;  6  :  17,  "  com- 
mand the  rich."     In  2  Tim.  2  :  15  (cf .  v.  2)  it  is  called  a  handling  of  the 


II 


§15]  THE   GIFT  OF   TEACHING  233 

To  display  the  importance  of  the  teaching  gift  for 
the  order  and  administration  of  the  Church  I  can  do 
no  better  than  to  conclude  this  section  by  quoting 
Sohm's  vigorous  affirmations  on  the  subject.  They 
will  not  appear  the  less  forcible  for  involving  some 
repetition.^^  r  ^^  /^ 

We  can  estimate  the  importance  of  the  gift  of  teach- 
ing when  we  recognize  what  a  role  was  claimed  for  thai 
word  of  God  in  the  Ecclesia. 

The  word  of  God  is  the  final  and  decisive  source  of 
Church  order.  Hence  the  conduct  of  the  Christian  as- 
sembly cannot  be  determined  by  the  assembly  itself  in 
the  exercise  of  self-government,  but  only  by  the  way  of 
teaching,  which  declares  what  is  the  will  of  God  for  the 
Ecclesia.  But  this  is  a  matter  which  pertains  to  the 
gifted  teacher,  who  in  virtue  of  his  charisma  authori- 
tatively proclaims  the  word  of  the  Lord  and  authorita- 
tively deduces  its  consequences.  In  this  role  appear, 
first  of  all,  the  apostles  in  the  conduct  of  their  congre- 
gations —  for  instance,  the  Apostle  Paul.  In  questions 
about  the  conduct  of  congregational  life  St.  Paul  gives, 
now  an  express  word  of  the  Lord,  and  now  his  own  |  ( 
"  opinion  "  —  in  the  confidence,  however,  that  this  ac-  i 
cords  with  the  mind  of  Christ.^^     Hence  the  accent  of 

word  of  truth.  Cf.  the  remainder  of  Sohm's  note  for  the  authority  that 
attached  to  the  name  "  teacher  "  in  the  second  century. 

"  Sohm,  pp.  29-38.  I  translate  the  text  pretty  closely,  but  give  the 
notes  much  abbreviated.  In  Sohm's  work  this  passage  follows  immedi- 
ately upon  his  discussion  of  Church  organization  which  is  quoted  above 
at  the  end  of  §  10.  I  have  altered  the  order  here,  and  generally  ex- 
panded the  treatment,  the  better  to  meet  certain  objections  that  have 
been  made  to  Sohm's  theory  and  to  prepare  the  mind  of  the  reader  for 
conclusions  which  cannot  but  appear  startling  at  the  first  reading. 

18  Cf.  above,  p.  144,  note.  D.  Also  1  Cor.  7  :  10,  *'  But  unto  the  married 
I  give  charge  (irapayytWo)),  yea  not  I,  but  the  Lord ; "  v.  12,  "  But  to 
the  rest  say  (Xeyco)  I,  not  the  Lord;  "  v.  25,  "Now  concerning  virgins  I 
have  no  commandment  {ini.Tuyrjv)  of  the  Lord,  but  I  give  my  opinion  (or 


234  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  lUL 

authority,  the  expectation  of  obedience,  with  which  he 
presents  his  '•  doctrine."  ^^  At  the  same  time  there  is 
here  no  question  of  the  exercise  of  formal  ecclesiasti- 
cal authority  (legislative  authority  —  which  belonged 
to  the  Apostle  Paul  as  little  as  to  any  other  Christian), 
but  of  doctrine,  instruction,  the  proclamation  of  God's 
word.  The  whole  apostolic  "  doctrine  "  of  Church  order 
was  built  up  of  such  teaching,  —  whether  didaskalia  or 
prophecy.^    The  gifted  teacher  stood  forth  m  the  name 

|.  judgment  —  yvcdiir]v) ,  as  one  that  hath  obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be 
trustworthy ;  "  v.  40,  "  But  happier  is  she  (the  widow)  if  she  abide  as  she 
is,  in  my  opinion  (yvuifirfv) ,  and  I  think  that  I  also  have  the  Spirit  of 
God;  "  11  :  23,  "For  I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered 
unto  you ; "  14 :  37,  "  If  any  man  thinketh  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or 
spiritual,  let  him  take  knowledge  of  the  things  which  I  write  unto  you, 
that  they  are  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  " ;  4 :  17,  "  who  shall  put 
you  in  remembrance  of  my  vmys  which  are  in  Christ ; "  1  Thess.  4  :  2, 
"ye  know  what  charges  (jvapayy^Xias)  we  gave  you  through  the  Lord 
Jesus."  The  apostle  frames  his  precepts  in  the  same  fashion,  whether 
he  is  prescribing  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  private  life,  or  for  the 
conduct  of  the  assembly  —  hence  all  of  the  passages  quoted  are  here  in 
point  —  in  both  cases  it  is  a  question  of  the  life  of  the  Ecclesia,  the  body 
of  Christ. 

^9  1  Cor.  11  :  17,  "  in  giving  you  this  charge  "  (jrapayyeW(i>v) ;  v.  34,  "  the 
rest  will  I  ordain  (8tard|o/iiat)  when  I  come ;  "  "  so  I  ordain  {biaTa(T(Tofiai.) 
in  all  the  Churches ; "  7:6,  "  this  I  say  by  way  of  permission,  not  of 
commandnif^nt; "  2  Cor.  8 :  8,  "  I  speak  not  by  way  of  commandment," 
—  It  is  implied  that  the  apostle  can  speak  by  way  of  commandment. 

^  The  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  gives  a  didaskalia  upon 
Church  order  (the  rights  of  the  bishops)  :  the  contents  of  the  epistle  re- 
veal the  "will  of  God,"  it  is  "spoken  by  Christ  through  us  "(utt'  avrov 
bC  fifiuiv)  and  therefore  requires  obedience  (  1  Clem.  59  :  1  ;  cf.  56:  1, 
"they  must  yield  not  to  us,  but  to  the  will  of  God").  The  Teachmg  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  later  pseudo-apostolic  Church  ordinances  bear  the 
same  character.  A  prophecy  upon  Church  order  is  contained  in  the 
Shepherd  of  Ilermas,  inasmuch  as  it  is  there  revealed,  that  for  a  certain 
time  the  possibility  of  a  second  penance  is  offered  by  God  to  all  sinners. 
The  epist'-es  of  Ignatius  give  another  example  of  such  a  prophecy.  Ig- 
natius dei^lared  prophetically  to  the  congregation  that  only  in  communion 
■with  their  bishop,  presbytery,  and  deacons  could  they  constitute  a  valid 
assembly  (Ecclesia),  — Philad.  7,  eicpavyaaa  .  .  .  fxeydXa  ^covfj,  dfov  (fxavf)  • 
Tc5  firicTKOTTcp  Trpocre^fTe  Koi  tS  'Trpfa^vTepico  Koi  diaKovois.   .    .   .  To  8e  yrvevfia 


§  15]  THE   GIFT  OF  TEACHING  235 

of  God  to  instruct  Christendom  concerning  the  order // 
and  organization  of  the  Ecclesia. 

In  regard  even  to  the  individual  problems  of  congre-  '// 
gational  life  it  is  only  the  word  of  God  that  can  supply-i  -^ 
the  desired  solution  (cf.  p.  143). 

Take  the  case,  for  instance,  of  election  to  some 
office  in  the  service  of  Christendom.  Since  the  very 
thought  of  a  legal,  formally  incorporated  organization 
was  foreign  to  the  early  Church,  there  could  be  no 
vote  by  the  congregational  meeting  in  our  sense,  nor, 
indeed,  any  election  of  a  legal  sort,  but  only  an  election 
by  God.  God  chooses  the  fit  person  by  means  of  a  spe- 
cial revelation,  using  as  his  instrument  the  prophecy 
of  a  gifted  teacher.  He  that  is  called  through  proph- 
ecy is  called  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  spake  by  the 
prophet.^^ 

€icri(f)V(Taev  Xeyav  rdSe  '  Xmpis  toC  fTTKTKOTTOv  fir]8ev  rroieiTf.  Cyprian  had  a 
revelation  in  which  he  heard  a  voice  declare  that  Christ  would  punish 
disobedience  to  the  rightly  constituted  bishop,  —  Cypr.  ep.  66 :  10,  inter 
cetera  quae  ostendere  et  revelare  diguatus  est  (deus)  et  hoc  addidit :  Qui 
Cristo  non  credit  sacerdotem  facienti,  postea  credere  incipiet  sacerdotem 
vindicanti.  —  Here  it  may  be  noted  that  the  synods,  which  since  the  fourth 
century  controlled  the  development  of  Church  order,  formulated  their  de- 
cisions by  suggestion  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

21  Cf.  below  the  beginning  of  §  18.  Acts  20  :  28,  where  it  is  said  of 
the  elders  (npea-^i/Ttpoi)  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
had  made  them  bishops  {vfxas  to  nvevfui  to  ayiov  edero  finaKOTTovs).  1  Clem. 
ad  Cor.  42  :  4,  the  Apostles  appointed  bishops  and  deacons,  "  testing 
(them)  by  the  Spirit  "  (8oKip.d(ravTes  tw  nvevfiaTi),  i.  e.  discerning  by  the 
aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost  those  that  were  fit  for  the  office.  Clemens  Alex., 
Ttr  o  aa^ofievos  TrXovaios,  c.  42,  the  Apostle  John  appointed  Church  officers 
from  among  the  number  of  those  whom  "the  Spirit  indicated  "  (tcjv  vno 
Tov  TTvevixaTTos  (TT]ij.eivofifV(ov).  The  assumption  in  all  three  passages 
evidently  is  that  bishops  and  deacons  (as  well  as  apostles  and  evangelists 
—  cf.  §  18)  are  chosen  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  i.  e.  through  the  medium  of 
the  prophecy  of  a  teacher  (in  this  case  an  apostle)  ;  and  that  this  is  the 
ordinary  mode  of  election,  the  mode  which  is  understood  as  a  matter  of 
course.  Especially  clear  is  the  passage  quoted  from  the  Acts,  where  it  is 
simply  taken  for  granted  that  the  elders  there  addressed  had  been  ap- 


// 


236  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

Or  take  the  case  of  absolution.  The  declaration  of 
absolution  or  remission  of  sins  can  only  be  made  in 
God's  name  and  in  his  stead.  The  general  terms  of 
absolution  are  a  part  of  God's  revelation,  and  a,nj  jmr- 
iicular  absolution  implies  the  handling  of  the  word  of 
God,  a  prophetic  declaration  of  God's  gracious  will  with 
respect  to  this  sinner.  Absolution  therefore  is  accom- 
plished through  the  act  of  a  teacher,  to  whom  it  is  given 
to  minister  the  word  of  God  as  God's  representative.^^ 

pointed  bishops  by  "the  Holy  Ghost."  Acts  14:  23  (Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas) "  having  appointed  for  them  elders  in  every  city,  praying  with 
fasting."  On  this  see  Harnack,  Proleg.  to  Didache,  p.  148,  note  :  "prayer 
and  fasting  (  the  petition  for  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost)  precedes 
the  appointment."  —  For  the  significance  of  the  fact  that  an  elective  act 
on  the  part  of  the  assembled  congregation  accompanies  the  election  by 
God  (the  "  Holy  Ghost  "),  cf.  §  18. 

22  According  to  Tertullian,  de  pudic.  c.  21,  the  authority  to  forgive 
deadly  sins  belongs  only  apostolo  aut  prophetae  (such  being  the  Monta- 
nistic  doctrine),  while  tlie  Catholic  Church  ascribed  this  authority  to  the 
bishop  as  well.  The  fundamental  thought  common  to  both  parties  is 
this,  that  the  authority  to  remit  sins  belongs  to  the  gifted  teacher  —  con- 
sequently, the  Catholics  would  say,  to  the  bishop  as  successor  of  the 
apostles.  According  to  the  common  Christian  view,  as  well  as  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Montanists,  the  martyrs  were  placed  in  this  respect  on 
a  par  with  the  prophets.  Cf .  Eusebius,  H.  E.  V.  2,  5  (letter  of  the 
Churches  of  Lyon  and  Vienne,  about  A.  d.  177) :  the  martyrs  eXvov  (iiv 
dnavrei,  edeafievov  8e  ovdeva,  i.  e.  they  loosed  all  those  lapsi  from  their  sins 
who  had  atoned  for  their  denial  by  subsequent  firm  confession.  See 
Sohm's  note  to  p.  32  for  a  long  list  of  passages  in  which  the  power  of 
forgiving  and  retaining  sins  is  claimed  by  and  conceded  to  the  martyrs ; 
in  which  the  view  is  expressed  that  "  Christ  is  in  the  martyr,"  "suffers  " 
in  him,  "testifies"  in  him  ;  in  which  to  the  martyr  is  ascribed  the  spirit- 
ual gifts  of  the  apostles  and  prophets.  —  The  function  of  the  teaching 
office  is  not  merely  petition  to  God  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  but  the 
announcement  that  God  has  forgiven  the  sin.  Therefore,  just  as  it  is  said 
of  the  martyrs  that  they  "loose"  (eXuoj/),  "forgive,"  "give  peace;"  so 
Tertullian  says  alike  of  the  martyrs,  the  prophets,  and  the  Roman  bishop, 
that  they  exercise  the  potestas  delictorum  remittendorum,  delicta  donare, 
donare  quae  deo  reservanda  sunt  {de  pudic.  c.  1),  —  that  is,  in  God's 
stead  they  directly /or^rii'e.  The  forgiveness  of  sins  is  a  function  of  the 
ministry  of  the  word  and  hence  of  the  gifted  teachers,  —  the  apostles, 
prophets,  martyrs,  bishops.     So  runs  the  edict  of  the  Roman  bishop  (de 


§  15]  THE   GIFT  OF  TEACHING  237 

It  has  been  shown  above  (pp.  225  sq.)  that  Church  dis- 
cipline also  was  essentially  a  part  of  the  ministry  of  the' 
word,  and  was  exercised  in  the  first  instance  solely  by<^ 
the  teacher,  through  admonition. 

It  results  therefore  that  in  the  matter  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal order,  of  a  call  to  service  in  the  Ecclesia  (appoint- 
ment to  office),  of  absolution  and  reception  into  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  Ecclesia,  of  discipline  or  exclusion  from 
the  Ecclesia,  only  the  gifted  teacher  can  decide,  because  it 
is  only  the  wo7'd  of  God,  not  any  congregational  enact- 
ment as  such,  that  is  able  to  resolve  such  questions. 

The  gift  of  teaching  is  the  gift  of  regiment,  a  gift 
which  empowers  its  possessor  to  conduct  the  govern- 
ment of  Christendom  in  the  name  of  God. 

The  most  complete  expression  of  this  fact  is  con- 
tained in  the  well  known  word  of  the  Lord  to  the 
Apostle  Peter,  Matt.  16  :  18,  19,— 

"  And  I  also  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church ;  and  the  gates  of  hades 
shall  not  prevail  against  it.     I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 

pudic.  c.  1)  :  ego  et  moecchiae  et  fornicatioiiis  delicta  poenitentia  functis 
dimitto,  —  cf.  Hippolytus,  P/uVosopA.  ix.  12,  rraaiv  vn  avrov  dcpUadai  aiiap- 
Tias-  The  forgiveness  of  sins  is  a  function  of  the  ministry  of  the  word 
and  hence  belongs  to  the  gifted  teachers,  —  the  apostles,  prophets, 
martyrs,  bishops.  The  same  teaching  office  decided  for  the  Church  the 
limits  within  which  the  forgiveness  of  sins  might  be  accorded.  So,  for 
instance,  at  Rome  the  SiSdo-icaXot  taught  that  no  second  absolution  might 
be  granted  for  post-baptismal  sins  (Herraas,  Mand.  IV.  3,  1),  while  the 
prophet  Hermas  taught  that  for  a  certain  time  a  second  penance  was 
still  admissible  in  virtue  of  a  special  revelation.  The  "  edict "  of  the 
Roman  bishop  Callistus,  cited  above,  proclaimed  the  possibility  of  the 
remission  of  fleshly  sins.  That  the  lapsed  also  might  receive  absolution, 
was  settled  by  the  bishops  on  the  ground  of  "visions  and  revelations" 
(Cypr.  ep.  57:2).  —  For  the  significance  of  the  fact  that  the  assent  of 
the  assembly  was  required  to  give  effect  hi  the  congregation  to  the  absolu- 
tion gi-anted  by  the  teacher,  cf .  §  17.  The  prayer  for  absolution  was  in 
place  in  the  congregational  assembly,  and  from  it  was  derived  the  so- 
called  deprecatory  formula  of  absolution. 


238  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind 
on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven:  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

The  power  of  the  keys  is  the  power  to  loose  and  to 
bind,  —  that  is,  in  general,  the  power  to  allow  and 
to  forbid,  and  that,  too,  in  the  name  of  God.  It  is  the 
power  of  teaching,  in  the  sense  above  expounded, 
the  power  which  ruled  the  whole  life  of  the  Church. 
It  is  the  power  or  authority  to  speak  in  God's  name 
and  in  his  stead ;  to  handle  God's  word,  and  hence  to 
exercise  government  in  the  Church.  It  is  therefore 
also  the  power  to  forgive  sins  or  to  retain  them  in 
the  name  of  God,  since  the  forgiveness  of  sin  repre- 
sents merely  a  particular  instance  of  the  ministry  of 
the  word.  Hence  it  is  with  justice  that  the  passage  in 
John  20  :  22,  23  has  in  all  times  been  taken  to  refer  to 
the  power  of  the  keys  : 

"Eeceive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost;  whose  soever  sins  ye  for- 
give, they  are  forgiven  unto  them ;  whose  soever  sins  ye 
retain,  they  are  retained." 

That  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  Apostle  Peter  was  the 
answer  to  Peter's  confession,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God."  In  so  far  as  Peter  ex- 
pressed the  faith  of  the  other  disciples,  the  answer 
included  them  also :  the  same  power  is  given  to  all  of 
the  Twelve  in  John  20  :  23,  and  it  is  promised  still  more 
generally  in  Matt.  18  :  18.*"^^  The  gift  of  teaching  rests 
upon  the  possession  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  sign  by 
which  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  recog- 
nized is  the  confession  of  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God.^*     To  every  one  that  is  fur- 

28  Cf.  §  8,  pp.  117  sq. 

2*  Cf .  1  Cor.  12 :  3,  "  No  one  can  say,  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the 
Holy  Ghost;"  also  1  John  4  :  2,  3. 


§  16]  THE   TEACHING   OFFICE  239 

nished  by  the  Holy  Spirit  with  such  a  faith  and  doc- 
trine is  given  the  power  of  the  keys  in  the  House  of 
God  (the  Ecclesia),  that  is,  the  power  of  regiment  in 
God's  name  and  through  God's  word. 

§  16,   THE   TEACHING   OFFICE  i 

The  possessors  of  this  gift  of  teaching  are  first  of  all  i 
the  apostles,  prophets  and  teachers,  who  therefore  claim  I 
the  first  rank  in  Christendom.^ 

^  The  whole  of  this  section  with  its  notes  is  translated  pretty  closely 
from  Sohni,  §  5. 

■^  1  Cor.  12  :  28,  "  God  hath  set  some  in  the  Church,  first  apostles, 
secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  then  —  "  Harnack  makes  a  valu-A 
able  contribution  to  the  study  of  these  offices  in  his  Prolegomena  to  the  \ 
Didache,  i")p.  93  sq.  See  especially  note  8  on  p.  94  where  the  significance 
of  the  term  fjyovfievoi  is  explained.  The  word  first  occurs  in  Heb.  13  :  7, 
MvrjfiovfveTe  rcov  rjyovnevoiv  vfimv,  oirives  eXaXijcrai'  vfiiv  rbv  \6yov  tov  6eov. 
Here  the  fj-yovnevoi  are  expressly  characterized  as  "those  tliat  spake  unto 
you  the  word  of  God."  Cf.  Didache,  iv.  1,  Tskvou  fiov,  tov  XoXovvtos  <toi 
TOV  Xdyoj/  TOV  deov  fxvrjcrdfjarT)  vvktos  koi  Tjfiepas,  Tifirjaeis  de  avTov  ins  Kvpiov. 
The  whole  of  the  Didache  (particularly  cap.  xv.  on  bishops  and  deacons) 
shows  that  there  was  but  one  class  of  persons  held  in  singular  honor 
(ol  TeTinT]fi€voi,  XV.  2)  in  the  congregation,  namely,  such  as  proclaimed 
the  word  of  God  in  their  capacity  as  ministri  evangelii.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  likewise  distinguishes  but  two  classes  in  the  congregation:  the 
^yovfievoi,  who  "watch  in  behalf  of  your  souls  "  (13  :  17);  and  the  ayioi 
(v.  24).  In  Acts  1.5:  22,  32  the  "prophets"  Judas  and  Silas  are  spoken 
of  as  avdpei  rjyovfifvoi  iv  toIs  d8e\(f)o'is-  These  passages  throw  light  upon 
the  interpretation  of  1  Clem,  ad  Cor.  1:3;  21 :  6,  where  f]yovp.fvoi  (also 
npoTjyovfifvoi)  are  distinguished  from  the  "elders  "  and  the  duty  of  obe- 
dience towards  the  former  is  urged,  while  the  latter  can  claim  only  a 
Ttiifj  KadTjKova-a.  Cf .  Hermas,  Vis.  II.  2  :  6 ;  III.  9  :  7.  The  gift  of  teach- 
ing implied  leadership  in  the  congregation,  and  in  the  whole  of  early 
Christian  literature  the  word  fjyovfievoi  is  used  only  of  those  who  were  the 
spiritual  instructors  of  the  Church,  the  prophets  and  teachers  by  profes- 
sion. It  had  therefore  the  same  scope  and  significance  as  TfTiixrjfjLfvoi 
(Didache,  xv.  2).  But  just  as  the  bishops  and  deacons  (and  subsequently 
the  presbyters)  came  to  be  included  under  the  designation  TeTifjLijfxfvoi, 
inasmuch  as  "they  too  perform  the  service  of  the  prophets  and  teachers;  " 
so  were  they  included  also  under  the  rjyovfxevoi.  As  the  prophets  and 
teachers  by  profession  vanished,  the  latter  —  especially  the  bishops  —  alone 


240  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

The  apostles  are  those  whom  Christ  himself  has 
chosen  and  sent  as  missionaries  for  the  dissemination 
of  the  Gospel.^     They  possess  all  the  spiritual  gifts  in 

were  left  to  represent  the  fjyovfievoi.  Tertullian  akeady  uses  the  expres- 
sions duces,  auctores,  as  equivalent  to  praepositi  and  clerus  (de  fuga,  c.  11). 
3  St.  Paul  chai'acterized  as  apostles  not  only  "  the  Twelve,"  but  all 
who  had  seen  the  Lord  and  had  received  from  him  personal  permission, 
and  authority  to  proclaim  the  Gospel.  From  this  point  of  view  he  him- 
self is  an  apostle  of  Christ  on  an  equal  footing  with  "the  Twelve":  1 
Cor.  9:  1,  "Am  I  not  an  apostle?  have  I  not  seen  Jesus  our  Lord?" 
According  to  15  :  5-8  the  Lord  appeared  to  Cephas,  then  to  the  Twelve, 
then  to  "  all  the  apostles,"  and  finally  to  Paul  himself.  The  Lord's  ap- 
pearance to  "  above  five  hundred  brethren  "  shows  that  not  all  who  saw 
were  called  to  the  apostolic  mission.  St.  Paul  is  the  last  whom  Christ 
called  to  the  apostleship.  With  this  agrees  Rom.  16  :  7,  where  it  is  said 
of  Andronicus  and  Junius  that  they  "  are  of  note  among  the  apostles," 
and  also  that  they  "have  been  in  Christ  before  me."  From  this  point 
of  view  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  was  reckoned  among  the  "  apostles," 
Barnabas  also  (Gal.  2:9;  1  Cor.  9:5,  6;  Acts  14:4,  14)  and  probably 
Silvanus  (1  Thess.  1:1;  cf .  2  :  6),  but  not  Timothy  (2  Cor.  1:1;  Col. 
1:1;  Philip.  1 :  1).  See  Lightfoot,  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  pp. 
95  sqq.  From  this  point  of  view,  moreover,  the  appearance  of  ylrevSanoa-- 
ToXoi  (2  Cor.  11  :  13 ;  Rev.  2  :  2)  is  comprehensible :  such  men  had  in  truth 
never  seen  Christ  nor  received  any  commission  from  him.  —  The 
above  represents  the  view  of  Lightfoot  in  his  dissertation  on  The  Name 
and  Office  of  an  Apostle,  op.  cit.  pp.  97,  98.  Lightfoot  justly  remarks 
(p.  98)  that  St.  Paul  is  replying  to  the  argument  of  his  judaizing  opponents 
who  would  deny  his  apostleship,  when  he  asks  the  rhetorical  question 
(1  Cor.  9:  1),  "Have  I  not  seen  our  Lord  Jesus?";  and  consequently 
that,  to  have  seen  the  Lord,  must  have  been  reckoned  by  both  parties, 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  alike,  an  essential  condition  of  the  aposto- 
late,  the  great  function  of  which  was  the  proclamation  of  the  Lord's 
resurrection  as  personal  witnesses  (Luke  24  :  4,  8;  Acts  1  :  8).  By  this 
the  apostles  are  distinguished  from  the  evangelists,  who  likewise  were 
wandering  missionaries,  and  were  equipped  with  an  apostolic  charisma, 
but  had  no  direct  commission  from  the  Lord.  Cf.  Harnack's  note  to 
Z)iV/ac^e,  xi.  6.  Ephes.  4 :  11,  "apostles  .  .  .  prophets  .  .  .  evangelists." 
Acts.  21  :  8 ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  II.  3  : 1 ;  III.  37  :  2-4 ;  and  V.  10  ;  2,  which 
treats  of  the  evangelists  of  a  later  time,  down  to  the  end  of  the  second 
century.  The  recipients  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  appear  to  be  evan- 
gelists,—  2  Tim.  4:5,  "doing  the  work  of  an  evangelist."  In  so  far 
as  the  evangelist  is  called  to  his  work  by  the  charisma  with  which  he  is 
equipped  (2  Tim.  2:6,  "the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,"  cf.  1  Tim. 
4  :  14)  he  is  to  be  accounted  as  one  called  of  God  (1  Tim.  6  :  11,  av  be.  a> 


§  16]  THE   TEACHING  OFFICE  241 

their  fulness,  among  them  the  gift  of  prophecy  and 
teaching  in  all  its  manifestations.*  The  apostolic  gift 
represents  the  highest,  the  most  complete  gift  of  teach- 
ing.^ The  "  evangelists,"  the  wandering  missionaries  of 
the  post-apostolic  age,  were  likewise  included  under  the 
honorary  name  of  "  apostle,"  since  they  were  called  by 
their  apostolic  charisma  to  a  like  activity.*^  All  of  the 
apostles  (evangelists  included)  were  empowered  to  ad- 
minister the  affairs  of  the  Church  in  virtue  of  their 
teaching  gift.  Just  as  the  apostles  in  the  early  Church 
at  Jerusalem  had  the  whole  conduct  of  the  consrreo-a- 
tion  in  their  charge,'''  so  the  Pastoral  Epistles  represent 
the  evangelists  Timothy  and  Titus  in  a  position  of 
full  authority  over  the  congregation,  —  they  are  re- 
sponsible for  appointment  to  office,^  they  exercise  dis- 

avOpmne  tov  6eov;  4:  6,  diaKovos  Xptarov  'irjcrov',  2  Tim.  2  :  21,  8ov\ov  8e 
Kvpiov  ;  1  Thess.  3  :  2,  Tipodfov,  tov  d8{X(f)6v  fjpSiv  kol  crwepyov  tov  deov  ev 
evayye\ia>  tov  XpKTTov),  and  hence  the  evangelists  also  were  called 
"  apostles  "  in  the  second  century,  —  so  especially  in  Didache,  xi.  3-6. 

■*  That  the  Apostle  Paul  exercised  all  these  gifts  is  showed  by  his 
epistles, — cf.  particularly  1  Cor.  14:6. 

5  Tertullian,  de  exhort,  cast.  c.  4,  Proprie  enim  apostoli  spiritum  sanctum 
habent,  [ut]  qui  plene  habent,  in  operibus  prophetiae  et  efficacia  virtutum 
docuinentisque  linguarura,  non  ex  parte,  quod  ceteri.  The  reputation  of 
having  the  "apostolic  gift"  is  therefore  the  highest  boast  that  can  be 
made  in  behalf  of  any  one.  Cf.  in  note  23  below,  the  passages  which 
speak  of  the  apostolic  teaching  gift  of  Polycarp,  and  the  "apostolic 
charisma"  of  the  martyrs. 

^  See  note  3. 

'  The  apostles  in  Jerusalem  were  charged  not  only  with  the  teaching 
in  the  assembly,  but  with  the  prayers  (Acts  6:4,"  But  we  will  devote 
ourselves  to  the  prayer  and  the  ministry  of  the  word ;  "  cf .  v.  6,  where 
the  apostles  utter  the  ordination  prayer),  and  until  the  election  of  the 
"seven"  they  alone  had  the  administering  of  the  offerings,  that  is, 
the  Church  property  (Acts  4:35,  37;  5:2;  6:1  sq.)  The  conduct  of 
the  prayers  and  the  administration  of  the  gifts  implies  likewise  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Eucharist. 

8  They  appoint  bishops  and  deacons,  — Tit.  1 :  5,  and  1  Tim.  3  : 1  sq., 
8  sq.  The  regulations  about  the  character  to  be  required  in  bishops  and 
deacons  imply  that  Timothy  was  in  a  position  to  appoint  them. 

16 


242  THE  ASSEALBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

cipline,^  administer  Church  property/"  give  general 
ordinances,"  and  in  all  these  matters  the  assent  of  the 
congregation  is  counted  upon  as  in  the  case  of  an  apostle.^^ 

9  Cf.  especially  1  Tim.  5  :  20,  "  Them  that  sin  reprove  in  the  sight  of 
all." 

1°  1  Tim.  5:17,  the  "elders  that  preside  well"  are  to  be  accorded 
"double  honor,"  i.e.  they  are  to  receive  a  double  portion  of  the  offer- 
ings (cf.  below  §  20).  The  counsel  given  in  1  Tim.  5: 11  to  "refuse  the 
younger  widows  "  implies  not  only  the  authority  to  appoint  widows,  but 
authority  also  over  the  Church  property,  since  the  official  widows  were 
to  be  supported  out  of  the  offerings  (v.  16). 

11  So,  for  instance,  in  the  matter  of  marriage  and  food,  1  Tim.  4  :  3-6. 

1'-^  All  this  in  virtue  of  the  charisma  which  they  possess :  —  1  Tim. 
4  :  14,  "  Neglect  not  the  charisma  that  is  in  thee  ;  "  2  Tim.  1:6,  "I  put 
thee  in  remembrance  to  kindle  the  charisma  of  God  that  is  in  thee." 
The  whole  activity  of  the  evangelist  consists  in  "handling  aright  the 
word  of  truth  "  (2  Tim.  2 :  15).  The  view  is  still  commonly  entertained 
that  Timothy  and  Titus,  to  whom  the  Pastoral  Epistles  are  addressed, 
held  their  positions  of  authority  only  in  virtue  of  apostolic  authorization, 
as  apostolic  delegates.  This  view  is  not  consistent  with  the  contents  of 
the  epistles.  It  is  true  that  the  evangelist  receives  counsels  and  injunc- 
tions from  the  apostle  (for  instance,  Tit.  1 :  5,  "  as  I  gave  thee  charge  "), 
and  the  apostle  proposes  to  come  and  relieve  the  evangelist  of  his  duty. 
But  nowhere  is  there  a  hint  that  the  evangelist  acts  in  the  apostle's 
name  and  exercises  authority  as  his  representative.  What  empowers 
the  evangelist  for  his  mission  is  not  any  formal  authorization,  but  the 
possession  of  a  charisma ;  and  he  acts  not  as  the  apostle's  helper,  but  as 
"man  of  God"  and  "servant  of  Christ."  In  virtue  of  the  gift  which 
God  has  given  him  he  acts  in  the  name  of  God,  not  of  the  apostle.  The 
position  of  Timothy  and  Titus  according  to  the  Pastoral  Epistles  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  in  the  unquestionably  genuine  letters  of  St.  Paul :  — 
cf .  1  Thess.  3:2,"  we  sent  Timothy  ...  a  fellow  worker  with  God  .  .  . 
to  establish  you  and  comfort  you;  "  1  Cor.  16  :  10,  11,  "  if  Timothy  come, 
see  that  he  be  with  you  without  fear,  for  he  worketh  the  work  of  the 
Lord  as  I  also  do; "  2  Cor.  7  :  15,  Titus  "  remembereth  the  obedience  of 
you  all,  how  with  fear  and  trembling  ye  received  him."  Timothy  and 
Titus  perform  the  same  work  as  the  apostle,  the  work  of  the  Lord, 
and  as  workers  with  God  (in  the  work  of  evangelization)  they  claim 
and  expect  the  obedience  of  the  congregations.  The  critical  questions 
about  the  Pastoral  Epistles  need  not  therefore  be  raised  here.  It  only 
needs  to  be  emphasized  that  the  position  ascribed  to  Timothy  and  Titus 
corresponds  thoroughly  with  the  view-point  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  Other 
reasons  which  forbid  us  to  refer  the  Pastoral  Epistles  to  the  second  cen- 
tury will  appear  below. 


§  16]  THE   TEACHING   OFFICE  24S 

It  was  not  until  the  second  century  that  the  rule  was 
made  prohibiting  the  travelling  "  apostle  "  from  remain- 
ing longer  than  two  daj^s  in  any  community .^^  By  this 
the  evangelists  were  effectually  excluded  from  partici- 
pation in  congregational  government.  The  age  of 
mistrust  had  already  arrived,  heralding  the  approach  of 
Catholicism,  which  was  to  restrict  the  Spirit  by  law 
to  precise  bounds  which  it  might  not  overstep. 

The  apostles  were  also  prophets,  inasmuch  as  they  \ 
possessed   the  gift  of  prophecy:^*  but  the  "prophets", 
in  the  narrower  sense  were  those  prophetically  gifted, 
men,  who,  lacking  the  commission  to  the  apostolate  and 
the  call  to  the   missionary  activity  of  an  evangelist, 
were  settled  in  already  established  congregations.^^     To 
the  prophet,  in  virtue  of  his  revelations,  belonged   the  If 
highest  authority  in  the   assembly  or  congregation  — 1| 
an  authority  which   was  all  the  more  marked  as  the 
number  of  prophets  began  to  diminish.     The  congre- 
gation that  boasted  a  prophet  in  its  midst  looked  natu- 
rally to  him   as  the  "decisive    authority  in  matters  of 
Church   order,  appointment  to   office,  absolution,  and 
the  conduct  of  the  Eucharist  —  including  the  offering 
of  the  prayer  and  the  disposition   of  the  gifts.     The 
)rophet  was  also   the  highest  authority   in   questions 


13  The  Dldache,  xi.  5  requires  that  visiting  "  apostles  "  shall  remain 
with  the  congregation  two  days  at  the  longest  —  otherwise  he  is  a  "  false 
prophet."  The  Pastoral  Epistles  know  of  no  such  limitation,  and  in 
this  they  reflect  the  earlier  situation,  Timothy  is  not  to  remain  perma- 
nently in  Ephesus,  but  yet  he  is  there  to  fill  the  office  of  teacher  until 
St.  Paul  come  (1  Tim.  4  :  13).  Cf.  Rom.  16  :  7,  where  St.  Paul,  in  send- 
ing greeting  to  the  "apostles"  Andi'onicus  and  Junius,  implies  clearly 
that  they  were  not  at  this  place  of  address  for  a  mere  passing  visit. 

1*  In  the  Didache  (xi.  5,  6)  the  false  apostle  is  therefore  called  a 
"false  prophet.'''' 

15  The  Didache  considers  the  prophets  (xi.  7  sq.)  immediately  after 
the  "  apostles,"  the  wandering  missionaries.  In  xiii.  1  the  prophet  is 
supposed  to  "  settle  "  in  this  or  that  congregation. 


244  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [HI 

I  I  of  administration :   he  was  at  once  preacher,  lawgiver, 
I  ||  and  presiding  officer  of  the  congregation.^^ 
'[/     Both   apostles  and   prophets  are  at  the  same  time 
iteachers,   and   can    therefore   be    included    under  the 
I  StSacr/caXot :  ^'^    but    "  teachers  "    in   the    more    specific 
i  sense  are  the  preachers  permanently  established  in  the 
'^congregation  who  lack  the    special  gift   of  prophecy. 
For  this  reason  the  teachers  are  more  numerous  than 
the  prophets,  and  inferior  to  them   in   grade  and  au- 
thority.    But  the  teacher,  too,  enjoys  high  estimation 
and   authority  as   one  of  the   natural    leaders  of   the 
congregation.^^     His  teaching  is  authoritative  doctrine, 

1^  Lucian,  Peregrinus,  c.  11 :  —  Peregrinus  Proteus  (in  the  fourth  dec- 
ade of  the  second  century)  settles  as  prophet  in  a  community,  n-po^jjTTjs 
/cat  deacrdpxTjs  Koi  avvayatyeiis  Koi  iravra  fiovos  avros  u>v. 

"  Cf.  Re\^  2:  20,  "Jezebel,  who  calleth  herself  a  prophetess  and 
teaclieth,''^  etc.  Didache,  xi.  10,  "  every  prophet,  though  he  ieacheth  the 
truth,  if  he  does  not  do  what  he  teacheth,  is  a  false  prophet."  The 
prophet  Montanus  is  also  called  diMa-KoXos  by  the  anti-Montanist  Apol- 
lonius  (about  a.  d.  200)  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  V.  18:  2,  6  Trpoa-cparos  8i8a(TKa\os, 
TO  epya  avTov  Koi  fj  dibaa-Kokia-  Cf.  also  ]\Iartyriuin  Pohjcarpi  (Euseb.  H. 
E.  IV.  15  :  39),  8i.ba.<jKa\os  aTroa-ToXiKos  kol  '!Tpocf)T]TiK6s. 

^8  In  1  Cor.  12  :  28  the  "  teachers"  occupy  the  "third  "  place  —  im- 
mediately after  the  prophets.  Likewise  in  Rom.  12  :  7  "  teaching  " 
comes  in  the  third  place  —  after  prophecy  and  ministry.  Ephes.  4  :  11 
places  the  teacher  at  the  end  of  the  list  —  after  apostles,  prophets,  evan- 
gelists, pastors  —  but  still  among  those  whom  Christ  has  called  to  "the 
building  up  of  his  Church,"  and  so  among  the  leaders  of  Christendom. 
See  Harnack,  Proleg.  p.  Ill,  for  an  elenchus  of  passages  in  which 
apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  are  mentioned  in  various  orders  of  se- 
quence. —  The  fame  of  the  Alexandrian  SiSao-KaAot  —  Pantaenus,  Clement, 
Heracles,  Origen  —  is  well  known.  Also  the  country  StSao-KaXoi  of  Egypt 
were  held  in  such  high  estimation  that  the  Bishop  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
felt  himself  obliged  to  intervene  personally  to  condemn  their  false  doctrine 
(Euseb.  H.  E.  VII.  24  :  6).  At  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  the 
ambition  of  the  notorious  Arius  was  to  acquire  the  reputation  of  a 
"teacher,"  the  better  to  maintain  himself  against  the  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria,—  cf.  theaccovmt  given  by  the  Anonomous  of  the  Meletanian  schism 
(Routh,  Reliquiae,  V.  p.  94)  :  Erat  autem  in  civitate  (Alexandria)  quidam 
Isidorus  nomine,  moribus  turbulentus,  doctoris  habens  desiderium,  et 
Arius  quidam,  habitum  portans  pietatis,  et  ipse  doctoris  desiderium  habens, 


§  16]  .  THE   TEACHING  OFFICE  245 

advice,  command.  He  too  exercises  a  normative  in- 
fluence upon  the  order  and  administration  of  the  con- 
gregation.^^ To  him  belongs  the  important  office  of 
instructing  the  catechumens.^^  The  teacher,  however, 
must  take  a  subordinate  place,  if  a  prophet  be  in  the 
congregation."^  This  explains  the  fact  that  a  class  of 
"  teachers  "  continued  to  exist,  at  least  in  some  parts  of 
the  Church,  long  after  the  development  of  the  monarch- 
ical episcopate :  the  teacher  could  subordinate  himself 
to  the  bishop  as  formerly  to  the  prophet,  while  the^ 
prophet  was  destined  to  disappear  before  an  officer  who 
could  brook  no  superior.^ 

The  three  sorts  of  teachers  that  have  just  been  con- 
sidered are  very  closely  related  :  in  all  three  cases  it  is 
an  ''  apostolic  gift "  which  is  possessed  and  an  apostolic 
function   of  teaching   which   is   exercised.^^     For   this 

.  .  .  invidentes  scilicet  pontificatuni  b.  Petri  (of  the  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria). That  the  account  (originally  written  in  Greek)  is  contemporary  is 
showed  by  the  turn  "  Arius  quidam.''' 

19  Cf .  pp.  237  sq. 

20  The  catechetical  school  of  Alexandria  was  conducted  by  StSao-KaXot. 
In  this  office,  it  is  true,  the  presbyters,  "presbyteri  doctores,"  commonly 
take  the  place  of  the  fit8ao-Ka\ot,  Cyprian,  epist.  29,  cum  preshyteris  doctor- 
ibus  lectores  diligenter  probaremus,  Optatum  inter  lectores  doctorum 
audientium  constituimus  :  — cf.  O.  Ritschl,  Cyprian  (1885),  pp.  171  sq.,  232 
sq. ;  also  Sohm,  note  31  on  p.  47. 

21  Pseudo-Clement,  de  virginitate  (about  200  a.  d.)  i.  11,  the  teacher 
(doctor)  is  admonished  to  serve  with  his  charisma  the  prophets  —  inservi 
fratribus  pneumaticis,  prophetis.  Cf.  Harnack,  Proleg.  p.  133.  Hence 
it  is  that  the  teachers  receive  only  a  passing  mention  in  the  Didache  (xiii. 
2 ;  XV.  1,2):  one  of  the  tendencies  of  that  work  (and  perhaps  of  that  age 
in  general)  was  to  emphasize  the  subordination  of  the  teacher  to  the 
prophet. 

22  Especially  in  Egypt,  cf.  above,  note  18;  also  Sohm,  note  33  on  p.  48. 

23  In  the  Martyrium  Polycarpi  (Euseb.  //.  E.  IV.  1.5  :  39)  the  martyr 
is  called  a  bibdiTKoKoi  aTrouroKiKos  Koi  Trpo(f)eTiK6s.  He  is  called  an  "  apos- 
tolic ''  teacher  because  he  is  a  "prophetic  "  teacher,  "for  every  word  of 
his  mouth  has  been  fulfilled."  Polycarp  himself  calls  Irenaeus  a 
(jLOKcipios   Koi   aTToordXtKos    Trpea^vTepos,   after  having  praised    him  as    a 


246  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR   INSTRUCTION  [in 


/  reason  the  boundaries  are  mutable :  the  apostles  are 
I,  at  the  same  time  prophets  and  teachers,  and  by  settle- 
1  ment  in  a  congregation  they  may  become  teachers  in 
''  the  narrower  sense,  as  the  prophets  on  their  part  may 
transform  themselves  into  apostles  (in  the  latter  sense) 
by  adopting  the  wandering  life  of  the  missionary  :  ^*  the 
prophets  moreover  are   included  in  the  more  general 
class  of  teachers,  and  the  teacher  in  turn  is  not  neces- 
sarily excluded  from  prophesying,  though  his  gift  may 
not  be  constant  enough  to  distinguish  him  as  a  prophet.'^^ 

diMa-Kokos  (Euseb.  ib.  V.  20  :6,  7).     The  letter  of  the  churches  of  Lyon 
and  Vienne  praises  the  Martyi-  and  physician  Alexander  8ia  ttju  npbs  Qfov 
ayciTrrjv  Koi  Trapprjcriav  tov  \6yov  rjv  yap  oiiK  dpoipos  drroaToKiKOv  xapitrp-aTOi 
(Euseb.  ib.  V.  1:49).     Euseb.  de  mart.  Palaest.  I.   11:  1,  twelve   men, 
jrpocprjTiKov  tivos  ij  koi  aTToaToXiKov  )(api(rp.aTos  Koi  dpidp.ov  KaTrj^iapevoi.      The 
expressions,  not  to  command  as  a  "teacher,"  nor  as  an  "  apostle,"  recur 
in  Ignatius  as  of  like  significance  ( 'Trail.  3:3;  Rom.  4:3);  with  Ignat. 
Ephes.  3:1;  cf.  Barnabas  1  :  8,  oiix  u)S  ^iMaKoXos  aXX'  ws  els  e^  vpa>v.     The? 
extraordinary  teaching  gift  is  an  apostolic  gift.     It  was  in  the  apostleslj 
that  the  fulness  of  the  teaching  gift  was  first  manifested :  in  the  prophetsjj 
and  teachers  the  same  gift  and  the  same  Spirit  is  now  manifested,  —  thatl 
is  the  thought  which  underlies  these  expressions. 

2^  Acts  13  : 1  sq. ;  14  :  14,  from  among  the  "prophets  and  teachers  "  at 
Antioch  two  men  —  Paul  and  Barnabas  —  are  separated  by  the  voice  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  "apostles."     On  the  other  hand,  Pantaenus  was 
first  "evangelist"  (apostle)  and  subsequently  settled  in  Alexandria  as 
8i8a<TKa\os,  Euseb.  H.  E.  V.  10  : 2,  4.     The  stoiy  of  Peregrinus  Proteus 
illustrates  this  change  of  functions.     Harnack  makes  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  wandering  prophet  and   the  apostle,  as  they  appear  in  the! 
DidacJie  (Proleg.  pp.  114,  119,  126)  :  but  they  both  possessed  the  same\ 
charisma  —  the  apostle  had  the  charisma  of  the  prophet  and  teacher —  |, 
and  the  prophet  by  adopting  the  wandering  life  became  an  "  apostle,"  as 
that  word  is  used  in  the  Didache,  —  so  Zahn,  Forschungen,  III.  p.  300;  l 
and  Loning,  Gemeindeverfassung,  pp.  37,  39.  ' 

25  Here,  as  in  a  few  other  places,  I  have  altered  Sohm's  phrase,  be- 
cause I  am  not  in  complete  agreement  with  him  about  the  distinctive 
characteristic  of  the  prophet.  The  distinguisJmig  mark  of  the  official 
prophet  he  takes  to  be  the  power  of  speaking  "in  the  Spirit,"  i.  e.  in 
extasy  (p.  45),  whereas  he  represents  prophecy  as  equivalent  to  sponta- 
neous and  enthusiastic  utterance  (p.  39,  "  Ein  jedes  begeisterte  Zeugnis 
ist  eine  Prophetic").  On  the  contrary,  I  take  prophecy  to  be  more 
strictly  the  outcome  of  revelation,  —  see  above,  p.  230. 


§  16]  THE   TEACHING  OFFICE  247 

The  principal  distinction  which  these  three  sorts  of 
teachers  have  in  common  lies  in  the  fact  that  they, 
and  they  alone,  follow  the  profession  of  preaching  the 
Gospel  as  their  sole  vocation.  They,  and  they  alone, 
are  morally  justified  in  not  working,  but  allowing 
themselves  to  be  supported  by  the  congregation :  the 
vocation  of  preaching  is  properly  their  only  vocation, 
and  hence  they  have  a  right  to  live  from  the  gifts  of 
the  Church.  ^^  Connected  with  this  is  the  fact  that 
they  were  likened  to  the  priesthood  of  the  Old  Cove- 
nant :  in  1  Cor.  9 :  13,  14  the  Hebrew  precedent  is 
cited  in  their  favor,  —  "  Know  ye  not  that  they  which 
minister  about  sacred  things  eat  of  the  things  of  the 
temple,  they  which  wait  upon  the  altar  have  their 
portion  with  the  altar  ?  Even  so  did  the  Lord  or- 
dain that  they  which  proclaim  the  Gospel  should  live 
by  the  Gospel."  The  preaching  of  the  Gospel  is  the  I 
New  Testament  altar-service,  the  teachers  constitute! 
the  New  Testament  priesthood,  they  are  the  mes-  >. 
sengers^^  and  representatives  of  God.     In  this   sense'' 

2«  The  general  principle  is  expressed  in  1  Cor.  9:  14,  "the  Lord  or- 
dained that  they  which  proclaim  the  Gospel  should  live  by  the  Gospel " 
(cf.  Matt.  10 :  10;  1  Cor.  9 :  6-11).  Gal.  6  :  6,  "Let  him  that  is  taught 
in  the  word  communicate  unto  him  that  teacheth  in  all  good  things." 
Hence  it  is  that  the  apostles  have  "  a  right  not  to  work  "  (1  Cor.  9  : 6). 

I  Thess.  2  :  6,  8vvd(i€voL  iv  ^dpei  eivai  ws  XpivTov  aTrdoToXoi.      Cf .  2   Cor. 

II  : 7-9,  in  order  not  to  be  burdensome  to  the  Corinthians,  but  to  main- 
tain his  boast  of  preaching  to  them  the  Gospel  "for  naught,"  St.  Paul 
"  robbed  other  churches,  taking  wages  from  them."  The  same  claim 
was  made  on  behalf  of  the  evangelist  (2  Tim.  2  :  6),  of  the  prophet  (Di- 
dache,  xiii.  1,  "Every  true  prophet  is  worthy  of  his  food  "),  and  of  the 
teacher  (Didache,  xiii.  2,  "  likewise  every  true  teacher,  he  too  is,  like 
the  laborer,  worthy  of  his  food").  Agreeably  to  this  St.  Paul  im- 
plies that  there  were  others  beside  himself  m  the  Corinthian  Church 
(?.  e.  apostles,  prophets,  or  teachers)  who  "partake  of  this  right"  over 
them. 

^'  Cf .  Gal.  4  :  14,  a>s  ayyiKov  Beov  ibi^aaOi  fxf,  and  perhaps  Kev.  2  :  3,  etc. 
—  the  ayyeXoi  of  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor. 


248  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

St.  Paul  speaks  of  his  activity  as  a  priestlf/  ministry,  ^^ 

'-and  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  the  Didache 

i  calls  the  prophets  the  "  high  priests "  of  the  Church, 

'  thus  establishing  their  right  to  enjoy  the  first  fruits 

like  the  priests  of  Israel.^^ 

In  the  call  to  administer  the  word  of  God,  to  address 
the  Church  in  God's  name,  lies  the  priesthood  of  the 
New  Covenant;  and  it  is  in  this  character  (as  vicars 
of  Christ  or  God)  that  the  teacher  exercises  the  power 
jof  the  keys  —  the  cure  of  souls  and  regiment.  The 
calling  of  the  teachers  is  a  priestly  and  pastoral  voca- 
tion ;  that  is,  a  vocation  to  the  spiritual  government  of 
^Christendom. 

§  17,  THE   TEACHERS   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY 

It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  that  we  may  prop- 
erly enough  speak  of  a  teaching  office,  or  rather  of 
various  offices,  represented  by  apostles,  evangelists, 
prophets,  and  teachers.  All  of  these  teachers  enjoyed 
in  some  sort  an  official  status  :  by  the  nature  of  their 
gifts  or  the  character  of  their  activity  they  were  dis- 
tinguished more  or  less  definitely^  from  one  another 
as  well  as  from  the  rest  of  the  disciples ;  they  spoke 
with  an  authority  which  was  recognized  by  the  Church  ; 
and  they  claimed  the  right  to  receive  their  support 
from  the  congregation.  Moreover,  the  authority  which 
in  virtue  of  their  gifts  they  might  claim  in  one  congre- 

2^  Rom.  15  :  16,  eis  to  eival  fie  Xeirovpyov  Xpicrrov  'irjcrov  fls  ra  (6vr}, 
Upovpyovvra  to  (vayyeWiov  tov  Ofoii,  Iva  yivrjTai  r)  7rpo(T(popa  tu>v  i6vu)V 
fv7rp6cr8eKTos,    fiyiacrpiivrj    iv   Trvevfiari    dyitp. 

-'  Didache,  xiii.  3,  "  All  the  first  fruits  shalt  thou  give  to  the  prophets, 
for  they  are  your  high  priests."  Cf.  Hippolytus,  Philosoph.,  inst.,  where 
the  xapts'  apxiepaTeias  nai  8i8a(rKaXias  is  ascribed  to  the  bishops  as  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles. 

1  Cf .  §  12,  pp.  189  sqq. 


§  17]  THE   TEACHERS   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY  249 

gation,  they  might  claim  in  all ;  that  is  to  say,  they  were 
officers  not  of  this  or  that  congregation,  but  of  the 
Church  at  large,  of  Christendom,  even  though  their 
ministry  were  actually  confined  to  one  community. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  equally  evident  that  their 
status  was  not  a  legal  one.  The  names  which  dis- 
tinguished them,  the  place  of  honor  which  they  enjoyed 
in  the  assembly  and  upon  the  lists  of  the  beneficiaries 
of  the  Church,^  the  acts  of  election  and  induction,  in 
short,  all  the  formal  elements  which  contributed  to 
define  their  official  character,  cannot  be  interpreted 
as  implying  an  imputation  of  legal  authority,  but  only 
as  so  many  ways  of  expressing  public  recognition  of 
the  teacher's  charisma.  The  official  recognition  was 
doubtless  a  factor  of  great  moment  for  the  authority 
of  the  teacher  in  relation  to  the  assembly.  The  pre- 
sumption was  naturally  on  the  side  of  any  one  who 
claimed  a  spiritual  gift  to  instruct  the  assembly,  and 
an  official  status  (formal  recognition  as  a  teacher) 
vastly  enhanced  the  preponderance  in  his  favor.  But 
the  assent  and  obedience  which  was  rendered  to  the 
teacher  was  due  not  to  his  office,  but  to  his  gift.  The 
assembly  was  morally  bound  to  follow  the  instruction 
of  its  teachers  only  in  so  far  as  it  was  recognized  as 
the  commandment  of  God :  on  the  other  hand  it  was 
theoretically  free  to  test  the  individual  utterances  of 
its  officers,  and  if  their  gift  was  proved  unreal  or 
their  doctrine  unsound,  all  authority  fell  at  once  to 
the  ground.  Office  conferred  no  formal  right  upon 
the  teacher,  and  implied  no  formal  subjection  on  the 
part  of  the  assembly.^  The  teacher  might  exact  no 
canonical  obedience,  but  only  the  free  obedience  of 
love.     All   office  whatsoever   in   the  Church  signifies, 

^  See  §  20.  a  cf.  §  13,  pp.  200  sq. 


250  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

not  lordship  or  mastery,  but  service  (Sta/coi^ia),  —  ac- 
cording to  the  word  of  the  Lord  (Matt.  20 :  26,  27), 
"Whosoever  would  become  great  among  you  shall  be 
your  minister;  and  whosoever  would  be  first  among 
you  shall  be  your  servant."  * 

With  regard  to  this  class  of  officers  (apostles,  evange- 
lists, prophets,  and  teachers)  the  case  is  particularly 
clear,  because  in  this  case  the  situation  in  the  Apostolic 
Age  is  not  obscured  by  subsequent  developments.  These 
officers  (with  the  possible  exception  of  the  StSao-KaXog) 
never  acquired  a  legal  status  in  the  Church,  for  they  did 
not  survive  the  Catholic  legalization  of  Christendom.^ 

It  is  likewise  true  that  the  assembly  on  its  part 
exercised  no  legal  authority  and  performed  no  legal 
function  in  selecting  and  inducting  its  officers.     The 

*  The  phrase  "  ministerial  authority  "  is  one  which  recurs  frequently 
in  Moberly's  Ministerial  Priesthood.  It  is  a  good  example  of  the  leger- 
demain by  which  the  author  attempts  to  disguise  the  essential  con- 
trariety of  two  opposed  theories  of  Church  government.  This  phrase  — 
unless  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  paradox  —  is  palpably  absurd,  and  the 
absurdity  becomes  at  once  apparent  when  the  thought  is  expressed  in 
simple  English.  The  Latin  adjective  lends  itself  to  ambiguity,  but  "the 
authority  of  a  servant  "  is  clearly  a  contradiction  in  terms.  The  teacher 
(priest)  is  justly  accounted  a  servant  of  the  Chm'ch,  but  it  is  impossible 
that  in  that  character  he  can  claim  any  authority  over  the  Church.  His 
authority  lies  in  the  fact  that  he  is  also  a  servant  of  God  and  speaks  as 
God's  representative.  The  primitive  (and  early  Catholic)  theory  of 
Church  government  which  ascribes  to  the  teacher  a  divine  authority  as 
God's  representative,  cannot  be  reconciled  by  a  phrase  ("  ministerial 
priesthood  "  is  another  example)  with  the  modern  theory  which  explains 
the  authority  of  the  Christian  minister  by  the  notion  of  legal  delegation 
from  the  Church. 

5  These  being  the  first  offices  to  be  developed  in  the  Church,  it  is 
natural  to  suppose  that  they  must  have  determined  the  notion  of  Christian 
office  in  general :  that  is,  the  offices  of  bishop  and  deacon  must  have  been 
interpreted  in  accordance  with  this  standard  and  subsumed  undei"  the 
general  conception  of  charismatic  office.  The  prevalent  theor}',  however, 
draws  a  sharp  line  between  the  higher  teaching  offices  (apostles,  prophets, 
etc.),  which  it  treats  as  the  only  charismatic  offices,  and  the  "congrega- 
tional  offices"  of  bishop  and  deacon  (and  presbyter).     The  prevalent 


§  17]  THE   TEACHERS   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY  251 

assembly  did  not  act  in  virtue  of  any  supposed  right  of 
self-government,  as  though  it  were  electing  ministers 
of  its  own  and  empowering  them  to  exercise  repre- 
sentatively the  corporate  authority  of  the  congregation. 
The  act  of  the  assembly  was  merely  an  act  of  recog- 
nition; it  implied  no  authority  whatsoever  on  the  part 
of  the  Church,  but  rather  consent  and  subjection  to  the 
representatives  of  divine  authority. 

The  popular  recognition  of  a  gifted  teacher,  by  whatso- 
ever formalities  it  was  expressed,  cannot  be  supposed 
to  have  had  the  effect  of  materially  equipping  such  a 
person  for  his  vocation,  or  even  of  legally  empowering 
him  to  exercise  his  gift.  For  the  assembly  as  such 
can  neither  bestow  a  charisma  nor  call  to  a  vocation  ^ 
it  can  act  only  as  a  witness  to  the  fact  that  such  4 
person  is  truly  called  and  endowed  hfj  God  for  th^ 
work  of  a  teacher.  It  is  equally  impossible  to  suppose 
that  the  assent  of  the  assembly  to  the  ministry  of 
the  word  in  any  particular  case  —  whether  it  be  the 
case  of  a  doctrine,  of  a  precept,  or  of  an  admonition  — 
has  the  power,  as  it  were,  to  make  such  a  word  the 
word  of  God.  For  the  assembly  as  such  has  no  cha 
risma,  only  the  individual  is  charismatically  endowed 
and  a  resolution  of  the  assembly  has  merely  the  signifi- 
cance of  a  testimony.  The  power  to  act  —  whether  in 
the  matter  of  legislation,  election,  absolution,  or  ex- 
communication—  is  not  derived  from  any  resolution 
of  the  assembly  (congregation),  but  from  the  charisma 
of  the  teacher,  by  means  of  which  the  word  and  will  of 

theory  accords  in  general  with  what  has  been  said  above  as  touching  the 
former  class  of  offices,  particularly  iu  recognizing  that  they  were  Church 
offices  in  the  fullest  sense  and  as  such  could  have  no  legal  character ;  but 
it  regards  the  latter  as  essentially  and  originally  legal  institutions,  repre- 
senting an  authority  delegated  by  the  congregation,  and  hence  only 
congregational  offices,  not  Church  offices. 


\ 


252  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

God  is  evinced  in  the  Church.  The  freedom  of  the 
Christian  assembly  is  commonly  regarded  as  an  expres- 
sion of  the  ideal  of  popular  sovereignty  and  is  supposed 
to  imply  a  democratic  organization.  This  conception 
is  radically  at  fault,  for  the  assembly  claimed  no  rights 
of  self-government,  rather  it  recognized  its  subjection 
in  all  things  to  the  will  and  rule  of  God  (or  Christ). 
Did  the  apostle  or  prophet  act  in  the  name  of  the 
Church  or  in  virtue  of  an  authority  which  he  had 
received  from  some  congregation  ?  No,  clearly  not. 
Whatever  he  did,  he  did  in  God's  name,  in  virtue  of  an 
authority  which  was  God-given,  resident  in  his  personal 
charisma.  The  government  of  Christendom  rests  not 
upon  any  authority  conferred  upon  the  congregation, 
but  solely  upon  the  authority  which  inheres  in  the 
{personal  charisma  of  the  teacher.  The  leadership  of 
[the  Ecclesia  comes  from  above,  through  the  medium 
of  the  individual  who  is  personally  endowed  by  God. 
The  government  of  Christendom  is  from  first  to  last 
authoritative,  monarchical,  in  its  nature,  and  the  im- 
mense importance  of  the  teaching  office  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  it  does  not  represent  a  legal,  disciplinary 
authority  exercised  in  the  name  of  the  Church  as  a 
self-governing  association,  but  rather  the  higher  moral 
authority  which  claims  obedience  in  the  name  of  God. 
What  a  mighty  energy  must  such  an  organization 
develop,  but  at  the  same  time  how  dangerous  a  power 
and  how  subversive  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  the 
Church,  so  soon  as  this  spiritual  authority  is  translated 
into  the  terms  of  a  legal,  formally  competent,  and 
formally  binding  authority  !  ^ 

^  The  last  two  paragraphs  are  substantially,  and  in  part  literally,  from 
Sohm,  pp.  54  sqq.  The  whole  of  the  following  section  (§  18)  is  likewise 
from  Sohm,  reproducing  substantially  §  7  of  his  work,  pp.  56  sqq.,  with 
omission  or  abbreviation  of  some  of  the  notes. 


§  18]  ELECTION   AND    ORDINATION  25a 

§  18,  ELECTION  AND   OEDINATION 

If  in  the  above  we  have  riglitly  characterized  the 
relation  of  the  teacher  to  the  assembly  or  congregation, 
what  significance  are  we  to  attach  to  the  act  of  elec- 
tion and  the  rite  of  laying  on  of  hands  ?  It  is  pre- 
cisely in  relation  to  the  teaching  office  that  we  have 
the  earliest  evidence  of  election  in  the  Church ;  the 
idea  and  practice  of  election  (and  ordination)  was 
developed  in  this  connection,  and  in  this  connection 
we  can  therefore  best  discover  its  essential  character. 

St.  Paul  asserts  that  he  was  called  to  the  apostolate 
"  not  from  men,  neither  through  a  man,  but  through 
Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father"  (Gal.  1  :  1).  This 
solemn  affirmation  of  the  apostle  must  be  regarded 
as  a  protest  against  the  insinuation  of  his  adversaries, 
that  he  had  received  his  election  and  commission  only 
through  men.  To  make  this  charge  plausible  the 
positive  fact  at  least  must  have  been  capable  of  ready 
proof;  namely,  that  St.  Paul  did  on  a  certain  definite 
and  well  known  occasion  receive  an  election  and  ordi- 
nation to  the  apostolate  through  men  —  so  far  as 
the  formal  and  outward  features  of  the  transaction 
were  concerned.  That  is  to  say,  St.  Paul's  expression 
in  Gal.  1:1  by  no  means  excludes  human  instru- 
mentality :  on  the  contrary  it  implies  just  such  an 
occurrence  as  is  related  in  Acts  13  :  1  sqq.  There 
was  such  a  thing  therefore  as  an  election  to  the  aposto- 
late through  men  which  was  properly  to  be  regarded 
as  election  through  God.  How  these  two  points  of 
view  w^ere  united  we  see  clearly  in  the  account  of  the 
transaction  as  given  in  the  Acts.  Barnabas  and  Saul 
were  reckoned  among  the  "  prophets  and  teachers " 
of   the   Church  at   Antioch,    until   they  were   singled 


254  THE  ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

out  through  the  instrumentality  of  a  prophet,  and 
appointed  by  unanimous  consent  to  an  apostolic  mis- 
sion (cf.  14  :  14).  The  details  here  mentioned  are  few 
but  significant :  the  assembly  had  prepared  itself  by 
fasting  to  receive  a  divine  revelation ;  in  the  midst 
of  the  assembly  the  Holy  Ghost  spoke  through  the 
mouth  of  a  prophet,  saying,  "  Separate  me  Barnabas 
and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them ;  " 
popular  assent  to  the  prophetic  appointment  is  implied 
in  the  subsequent  acts,  in  which  the  assembly  as  a 
whole  participated ;  that  is,  in  prayer  and  fasting 
with  the  laying  on  of  hands  for  the  confirmation  of 
the  apostolic  charisma.^ 

Another  account  of  the  election  of  an  apostle  is 
given  in  Acts  1  :  23-26.  The  assembled  brotherhood 
elected  two  men  between  whom  the  lot  was  to  decide 
which  might  count  as  elected  by  God.  "  The  lot  fell 
upon  Matthias,  and  he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven 
apostles."  ^ 

Another  case  is  the  election  of  Timothy  to  the  office 
of  an  evangelist  (apostle  in  the  later  sense)  :  he  was 
elected  "  through  prophecies "  which  testified  to  his 
charisma,  and  that  "  before  many  witnesses."  The 
record  of  this  event  is  significant,  though   the  details 


1  Cf.  Sobm,  note  1,  p.  56. 

2  The  significance  of  the  lot  is  showed  by  the  prayer  which  pre- 
ceded it:  "  Thou,  Lord,  .  .  .  show  of  these  two  the  one  whom  thou  hast 
cliosen."  The  ordinary  mode  of  ascertaining  the  divine  choice  was 
through  the  prophetic  voice :  the  lot  was  exceptional,  but  its  significance 
was  the  same.  By  way  of  exception  the  will  of  God  may  be  revealed 
by  a  miracle  or  portent :  e.  g.  the  election  of  the  Roman  bishop  Fabian 
(Euseb.  H.  E.  VI.  29:3,  4)  was  decided  by  a  dove  which  descended 
upon  him.  Witness  of  the  Lord's  resurrection,  as  an  antecedent  condi- 
tion of  apostleship,  must  of  course  be  assumed  in  the  case  of  Justus  and 
Matthias,  —  and  of  Barnabas.  St.  Paul  expressly  claimed  to  fulfil  this 
condition  (1  Cor.  9:1;  15  :  8,  9). 


§  IS]  ELECTION   AND   ORDINATION  255 

have  to  be  gathered  from  several  sources  :  1  Tim.  1:18, 
"  according  to  the  prophecies  which  led  to  thee,"  that  is, 
occasioned  his  election  (/caret  ra?  irpoayovcra^  eVt  ere 
7rpo(f)r]TeLas) ;  4  :  14,  thy  charisma  was  given  thee 
"  through  (Sia)  prophecy  with  (/Aera)  the  laying  on  of 
hands  of  the  presbytery;"  6  :  12,  "  thou  didst  confess 
the  good  confession  in  the  sight  of  many  witnesses ; " 
2  Tim.  1:6,"  the  charisma  of  God  which  is  in  thee 
through  (8ia)  the  laying  on  of  my  hands  ;  "  2:2,"  the 
things  which  thou  hast  heard  from  me  among  (8ta) 
many  witnesses."  ^  Prophecy  designated  Timothy,  and 
indeed  before  many  witnesses,  — that  is,  in  the  Church 
assembly.  The  act  was  completed  by  a  confession  of 
faith  on  the  part  of  Timothy,  by  an  address  (and 
prayer)  on  the  part  of  St.  Paul,,  and  by  the  laying  on 
of  hands  by  St.  Paul  and  the  presbytery  in  common. 
The  assent  of  the  assembly  to  the  prophetic  designation 
of  Timothy  is  indicated  by  the  participation  of  the  pres- 
bytery in  the  laying  on  of  hands,  and  also  by  the 
fact  that  the  assembled  brethren  are  referred  to  as 
"  witnesses." 

In  all  three  accounts  there  emerge  two  distinct  sides 
to  the  transaction :  on  the  one  hand  the  witness  of 
God,  on  the  other  the  witness  of  the  assembly.  God's 
witness  is  manifested  ordinarily  through  the  medium  of 

3  That  all  these  passages  refer  to  the  same  occasion,  namely,  the  elec- 
tion and  ordination  of  Timothy,  is  proved  by  Holtzniann,  Pastoralbriefe, 
pp.  227  sqq.  The  present  argument  is  hardly  affected  by  the  question 
of  the  historicity  of  this  account,  or  of  the  accounts  cited  above  from  the 
Acts.  The  point  that  concerns  us  here  is  simply  the  procedure  ordi- 
narily followed  in  an  election  to  office  within  the  early  Christian  period, 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  definite  characteristics  vyhich  here 
appear  correspond  perfectly  with  the  notions  of  primitive  Christianity : 
i.  e.  (1)  election  to  the  office  of  an  evangelist  (apostle),  (2)  election  or 
designation  through  prophecy  in  the  midst  of  an  assembly,  (3)  assent  of 
the  assembly,  accompanied  with  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  hands. 


256  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

prophecy,  —  by  the  voice  of  a  gifted  teacher.     To  the 

witness  of  God  is  joined  the  witness  of  the  assembly, 

which  signifies  assent    to  the    word  of   the    prophet,  a 

recognition  that  it  is  God  himself  who  speaks  through  the 

j  mouth  of  man.     The  election  therefore  which  is  accom- 

\  plished  by  a  prophetic  choice  with  the  subsequent  assent 

'  of  the  assembly,  is  not  an  election  from  men,  neither  by 

,1  a  man,  but  through  God.     The  election  is  in  its  nature 

\  a  spiritual,  and  not  a  legal  act :  the  officer  elect  is  not 

elected  by  the  assembly  as  a  corporation  clothed  with 

any  sort  of  a  legal  authority,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost.* 

^  In  1  Cor.  12 :  28  and  Ephes.  4:11  it  is  said  in  common  of  apostles, 
prophets,  and  teachers  that  they  were  placed  or  appointed  by  God. 
From  these  passages  Harnack  {Proleg.  p.  97)  infers  that  officers  of  this 

(class  were  not  elected  by  the  Churches,  and  in  this  fact  he  discovers  a 
fundamental  distinction  between  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  on  the 
one  hand,  and  bishops  and  deacons  on  the  other.  The  notion  is  that  the 
former  were  elected  by  God  for  the  whole  of  Christendom,  the  latter 
were  elected  by  the  congregation  for  the  service  of  the  local  society.  It 
is  clear  from  the  above  that  no  such  hard  and  fast  distinction  existed. 
Apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  might  also  be  elected  by  the  Ecclesia. 
In  regard  to  apostles  at  least  (exclusive  of  the  original  eleven)  election 
seems  to  have  been  the  rule.  But  what  is  formally  an  election  through 
men  is  spiritually  an  election  through  God.  It  was  precisely  the  same 
in  the  case  of  bishops  and  deacons :  they  too  were  elected,  but  their  elec- 
tion counted  as  an  appointment  by  God,  —  cf .  Acts  20  :  28,  v\ms  to  nvevfia 
TO  ayiov  edfTo  eTncrKoirovs,  and  above,  n.  21.  p.  235.  Precisely  the  same 
notion  persisted  in  a  later  age.  Ignatius.  Philad.  1 :  1,  the  bishop  of 
Philadelphia  is  lauded  as  one  who  holds  his  office  "not  of  himself,  neither 
through  men."  Cyprian,  epist.  48:4,  doi}iinns  que  sacerdotes  sibi  in 
ecclesia  sua  eligere  et  constituere  dignetur ;  ep.  55  :  8,  de  dei  Judicio  qui 
episcopum  eum  fecit ;  .  .  .  factus  est  autem  Cornelius  episcopus  de  dei 
et  Christi  ejus  judicio ;  ep.  59  :  5,  post  divinum  judicium,  post  populi  suf- 
fragium,  post  coepiscoporum  consensura  judicem  se  non  jam  episcopis 
sed  deo  faceret;  ep.  66:1,  post  deiim  judicem,  qui  sacerdotes  facit,  te 
velle  .  .  .  de  dei  et  Christi  j udicio  judicare;  ep.  66  :  4,  deo  episcopum  con- 
stituenti ;  ep.  66 : 9,  majestatem  dei  qui  sacerdotes  ordinat  Christi.  — 
When  the  early  texts  describe  an  election  they  speak,  now,  of  the  assem- 
bly as  the  agent ;  again,  of  some  authoritative  individual,  like  the 
apostles  Barnabas  and  Paul,  or  the  evangelists  Timothy  and  Titus;  and 
again,  of  God,  Christ,  or  the  Holy  Ghost.     In  all  this  there  is  no  contra- 


§  18]  ELECTION   AND   ORDINATION  257 

Election  to  the  teaching  office  was  followed  by  a  rite 
which  was  very  early  developed,  if  it  was  not  strictly 
an  original  and  invariable  constituent  of  appointment 
to  office ;  namely,  the  laying  on  of  hands  with  accom- 
panying prayer.^     The  prayer  denotes  petition  for  the 

diction,  the  same  thing  is  meant  in  each  case :  election  depends  upon  a 
revelation  of  the  divine  will,  which  is  ordinarily  given  through  the 
prophecy  of  a  gifted  teacher,  and  which  receives  the  witnessing  assent 
of  the  assembly.  What  is  decisive  for  the  Church  is  not  that  this  or  that 
assemhlij  has  made  choice  of  an  officer  —  the  act  of  the  assembly  is  no  elec- 
tion at  all  in  the  secular  sense  of  the  word  —  but  that  God  has  chosen. 
It  is  true  in  particular  of  election  to  the  office  of  bishop  or  deacon  that 
it  is  an  "  election  "  only  in  this  —  improper  —  sense  of  the  word.  Hence 
in  this  case,  too,  election  by  the  assembly  is  merely  an  act  of  assent,  — 
the  classical  reference  is  1  Clem.  44  :  3,  o-uveuSoKjjo-acrj;?  t^s  eicKXTja-ias  irdoTjs. 
This  whole  range  of  ideas  which  was  associated  with  election  or  appoint- 
ment to  office  in  the  Church,  was  altogether  peculiar  to  Christianity ;  — 
yet  what  becomes  of  it  all  in  the  hands  of  Hatch,  who  assumes  to  ex- 
plain all  circumstances  of  early  Christian  life  by  comparison  with  the 
secular  institutions  of  the  state  or  of  civil  societies?  The  spiritual  char- 
acter of  the  act  is  done  away  with,  the  conception  is  said  to  be  precisely 
the  same  as  in  the  case  of  appointment  to  civil  office,  and  that  for  five 
reasons,  of  which  it  may  suffice  here  to  mention  one  (Organization,  pp. 
129  sq.)  :  "All  the  elements  of  appointment  to  ecclesiastical  office  were 
also  the  elements  of  appointment  to  civil  office.  These  elements  were 
nomination,  election,  approval,  and  the  declaration  of  election  by  a  com- 
petent officer."  Further,  to  explain  a  marked  peculiarity  of  language 
in  the  ecclesiastical  sources,  it  is  affirmed  that  the  secular  sources  show 
"that,  according  to  the  constitutional  fiction  which  we  find  in  Rome 
itself,  especially  during  the  Republican  period,  the  person  appointed  is 
said  to  be  appointed,  not  by  the  people  who  elected,  but  by  the  officer 
who  presided  at  the  election."  In  opposition  to  such  a  view  as  this 
Moberly  (Ministerial  Priesthood,  p.  105)  justly  affirms:  "The  idea  of  a 
secular  appointment  as  secular,  a  distinction  of  convenience  drawn  on 
the  basis  of  convenience,  without  reference  to  the  divine  purpose,  or 
consciousness  of  being  instrumental  to  a  divine  act,  is  the  one  idea  which 
may  be  regarded  as  wholly  untenable"  in  reference  to  the  Christian 
ministry. 

^  Acts  6  :  6,  appointment  of  the  "  seven  "  at  Jerusalem  —  "  when  they 
had  prayed,  they  laid  their  hands  on  them."  13  :  3,  election  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas  —  "when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed  and  laid  their 
hands  on  them."  In  these  two  cases  both  the  laying  on  of  hands  and 
prayer  are  mentioned,  while  in  1  Tim.  4  :  14  and  2  Tim.  1  :  6  (election  of 

17 


258  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [in 

Holy  Ghost.^     What  is  the  significance  of  the  laying  on 
of  hands  ? 

The  Christian  rite  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  what- 
ever may  be  its  relation  to  the  Jewish  usage,  is  not 
adequately  explained  by  it ;  for  the  instances  of  its  ap- 
plication were  very  different  in  the  two  cases,  and  its 
significance  could   hardly  have  been  the  sameJ     The 


Timothy  as  evangelist)  only  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  referred  to,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  in  Acts  14  :  23  (appointment  of  elders)  only  the 
prayer.  The  later  development  makes  it  certain  that  the  two  acts  were 
ordinarily  inseparable,  and  that  where  only  one  is  mentioned  we  are 
justified  in  assuming  the  other.  Laying  on  of  hands  for  the  purpose  of 
ordination  occurs  only  in  the  Acts  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  but  at  all 
events  the  development  of  the  custom  belongs  to  early  Christian  times. 

6  The  petition  for  the  presence  or  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  constitutes 
the  invariable  and  unquestionably  original  content  of  all  later  ordination 
prayers, — cf.  Canon.  Hippol.  HI.  §  13,  IV.  §  31,  V.  §  39;  Aposl.  Conxt. 
VIII.  cc.  5,  15,  16,  18,  20-22.  When  we  have  mention  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  of  fasting  as  an  accompaniment  of  the  ordination  prayer 
(13 :  3  &  14  :  23),  we  may  understand  that  the  prayer  is  a  petition  for 
the  Holy  Ghost  —  offered  not  only  in  behalf  of  the  person  to  be  or- 
dained, .but  also  of  those  who  utter  the  prayer  (Apost.  Const.  VIII. 
c.  5,  "pour  out  among  us  the  power  of  thy  guiding  Spirit"),  because 
they  are  about  to  perform  the  laying  on  of  hands.  It  is  still  the  rule  in 
Catholic  ordination  that  it  must  be  given  Jejuna  a  Jejunantibus.  Comp. 
Murat.  Fragm.  line  11,  conjejunante  mihi  triduo,  et  quid  cuique  fuerit 
revelatum,  .  .  .  nobis  enarremus.  Hernias,  Vision,  HI.  1:2,  "having 
fasted  often  and  prayed  to  the  Lord  that  he  would  make  known  to  me 
the  revelation."  Haruack,  Proleg.  p.  148  in  the  note:  —  fasting  is  a 
preparation  for  the  reception  of  the  Spirit,  whether  it  be  for  the  pur- 
pose of  a  revelation  or  of  an  impartation  of  the  Spirit  (laying  on  of 
hands). 

■^  Driver  contributes  to  the  Oxford  Conference  on  Priesthood  and 
Sacrifice  (Sanday  editor,  p.  39)  an  interesting  note  on  the  various  uses 
and  substantial  meaning  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  the  Old  Testament. 
He  concludes  that  the  ceremony  seems  "  to  symbolize  the  transmission, 
or  delegation,  of  a  moral  character  or  quality,  or  of  responsibility  or 
authority  (or,  of  power  to  represent  another)."  Various  aspects  of  the 
idea  of  transmission  or  delegation  are  illustrated  in  the  case  of  instituting 
a  successor  to  office  (Num.  27:  18,  20;  Deut.  34:  9  ;  —  the  rabbinical 
laying  on  of  hands  at  the  institution  of  a  judge  or  teacher  is  to  be  re- 
garded from  the  same  point  of  view.     Cf.  Hatch,  Organization,  p.  135,  and 


§  18]  ELECTION   AND    ORDINATION  259 

meaning  of  the  New  Testament  ceremony  is  substan- 
tially defined  by  the  content  of  the  accompanying 
prayer.^     Doubtless  its  significance  differed  as  it  was 

Schiiver,  Jewisli  People,  div.  IT.  vol.  1.  p.  177).  The  laying  on  of  hands 
was  emploj^ed  in  the  case  of  all  kinds  of  animal  sacrifice  (burnt-offering 
Lev.  1 :  4,  peace-ofEering  Lev.  3 :  2,  8,  13,  sin-offering  Lev.  -1 :  4,  15,  24), 
where  the  offerer  lays  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  victim  :  in  the  case 
of  the  scape-goat  (Lev.  16:  21),  upon  which  the  high' priest  lays  his 
hands  ;  of  a  blasphemer  condemned  to  death  (Lev.  24 :  14  ;  Susanna,  v. 
34),  on  whose  head  the  witnesses  lay  their  hands ;  and  finally  in  the  case 
of  the  installation  of  the  Levites,  upon  whom  the  people  lay  their  hands 
(Num.  8 :  10),  offering  them  as  a  substitutionary  sacrifice  for  the  first-born 
of  all  Israel  {v.  18)  —  hence  in  vv.  11,  13  they  are  to  be  "waved  "  before 
the  Lord.  There  was  no  special  laying  on  of  hands  in  the  induction  of 
the  priest.  The  Hebrew  word  denoted  more  exactly  to  lean  or  rest  the 
hands ;  the  implication  certainly  is  that  manual  contact  was  essential  to 
the  act ;  and  all  the  cases  of  its  use  indicate  that  the  notion  was  a 
mechanical  one.  This  is  true  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  blessing, 
which  is  the  only  case  that  comes  near  to  the  New  Testament  use.  It 
is  only  so  that  we  can  explain  the  difference  between  the  blessing  accorded 
by  the  right  and  the  left  hand  (Gen.  48:  14,  18).  The  blessing,  accord- 
ing to  the  Old  Testament  view,  is  not  so  much  prayed  for  as  given 
(transmitted),  — with  the  right  hand  the  stronger,  with  the  left  the  lesser 
blessing.  Such  a  notion  is  utterly  impossible  from  the  New  Testament 
standpoint.  In  the  Church,  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  blessing  constituted 
one  case  at  least  in  which  manual  contact  was  not  accounted  important. 
In  the  Apost.  Const.  (VIII.  37,  38)  the  general  blessing  of  the  bishop  at 
morning  and  evening  prayer  is  called  the  laying  on  of  hands  {x^ipoQeaia) 
from  the  gesture  which  accompanied  it.  Laying  on  of  hands  for  the 
healing  of  the  sick  was  unknown  to  the  Old  Testament  (Elisha  laid  his 
whole  body  npon  the  dead  boy,  2  Kings  4  :  34),  as  was  also  its  use  for 
the  impartation  or  confirmation  of  spiritual  gifts. 

8  Imposition  of  hands  was  never  employed  in  the  Church  without  ac- 
companying prayer,  which  asked  specifically  for  that  which  was  supposed 
to  be  given  in  the  act.  It  was  not,  however,  regarded  as  a  mere  gesture, 
or  unessential  adjunct  of  the  prayer, —  except,  perhaps,  in  the  case  of  ben- 
ediction. The  close  relation  of  this  act  to  prayer  is  indicated  in  the  oft 
quoted  and  much  abused  saying  of  St.  Augustine  {de  Baptismo  c.  Donat. 
lib.  III.  c.  16)  :  Quid  est  enim  aliud  [manum  impositio]  nisi  oratio  super 
hominem?  St.  Augustine's  point  is,  that  though  baptism  itself  cannot  be 
repeated  (even  the  baptism  of  schismatics),  yet  the  laying  on  of  hands 
(confirmation)  which  accompanies  baptism  may  be,  —  "  for  what  is  it  but  a 
])rayer  (uttered)  over  a  man  ?  "  The  practice  of  reconfirming  schismatics 
upon  their  entrance  into  the  Catholic  Church  shows  that  the  rite  was  re- 


260  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

employed  in  benediction,  "confirmation,"  exorcism,  or 
ordination  ;  but  in  all  of  these  cases  there  appears  a 
generic  idea,  which  serves  to  explain  the  meaning  of 
the  laying  on  of  hands  as  used  in  ordination. 

One  of  the  applications  of  this  rite  which  unquestion- 
ably belongs  to  the  earliest  Christian  period  is  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  for  the  healing  of  the  sick.  The 
meaning  of  it  is  here  plain,  and  hence  we  may  draw 
inferences  as  to  its  character  in  other  cases.  The  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  for  the  purpose  of  healing  denotes  ex- 
orcism, a  driving  out  of  the  demoniac  power  of  evil  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.^     The  laying  on  of  hands  is  here 

garded  as  a  sort  of  exorcism,  like  the  imposition  of  hands  in  absolution. 
In  this  case  St.  Augustine  regards  it  as  confirming  the  charisma  of  charity. 
His  argument  here  will  not  bear  to  be  stretched  beyond  its  particular 
application,  least  of  all  to  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination,  for  it  is 
in  this  very  work  (lib.  I.)  that  he  lays  the  foundation  for  the  doctrine 
of  the  sacrament  of  orders,  arguing  that  ordination  confers  an  indelible 
character  and  (like  baptism)  cannot  be  repeated.  This  phrase  of  his, 
moreover,  does  not  imply  any  disparagement  of  the  act  of  imposition  of 
hands,  and  so  does  not  furnish  any  support  to  Hatch's  contention  {Organi- 
zation, p.  135)  that  the  rite  was  not  regarded  as  essential.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  suggests  a  serious  obstacle  to  Hatch's  light  method  of  disposing 
of  the  rite  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination,  as  though  it  were 
something  which  throws  no  light  upon  the  character  of  Church  office,  and 
hints  at  no  difference  between  appointment  to  this  and  to  civil  office  (ib. 
pp.  132  sqq.).  Such  an  argument  can  be  made  plausible  only  by 
ignoring  the  prayer  which  defines  the  character  of  the  act ;  or  by  ignoring  the 
specific  content  of  the  prayer,  as  Hatch  does  in  his  art.  Ordination  in  the 
Diet.  Christ.  Ant.  p.  1503,  remarking  only  that  "it  was  both  natural  and 
fitting  that  any  appointment  should  be  accompanied  by  prayer."  Prayer 
and  the  laying  on  of  hands  was  not  the  only  religious  element  in  election 
to  Church  office,  for  we  have  seen  that  the  whole  was  a  religious  and 
spiritual  transaction,  but  it  was  the  most  ostensibly  religious  element,  the 
hardest  to  misinterpret,  the  one  which  stands  most  manifestly  opposed  to 
the  notion  that  appointment  to  Church  office  signified  the  same  as  ap- 
pointment to  civil  office.     Cf.  pp.  24  sq. 

^  The  official  exorcist  of  the  later  organization  corresponds  in  origin 
with  the  possessor  of  the  "  gift  of  healing"  (1  Cor.  12  :  28)  :  one  of  his 
principal  functions  is  the  healing  of  the  sick.  Apost.  Const.  VIII.  25, 
fnoKpioTrjs  oi  ^eipoToveirai  ...   6  yap  \a^av  xdpi(rp,a  lafidroiv  8i  aTroKoXv^ews 


§  IS]  ELECTION   AND   ORDINATION  261 

not  a  mere  insignificant  accompaniment  of  prayer,  but 
a  means   whereby  the  Spirit  of  God  which    resides  in 
the  actor  works  upon  the  patient.     The  same  signifi- 
cance must  belong  to  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the 
other  cases  of  its  use.     The  imposition  of  hands  upon 
one  who  is  elected  to  a  teaching  function  is  also  an 
instrumentality  for    the    effectual    influence    of    God's 
Spirit  upon  him.     Only  as  we  recognize  this  as  the 
starting-point  can  we  understand  the  development  of 
the  Catholic  view,  which  actually  regarded  the  laying 
on  of  hands  in  ordination  as  a  mechanical  impartation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.     But  the  laying  on  of  hands  pre- 
supposed   an    election    to    the    teaching    function  —  it 
assumed  that  the  person  receiving  this  rite  was  already] 
chosen  by  God,  and  that  he  already  possessed  God's  spirit 
and  the  spiritual  charisma  which  furnished  him  with 
the  faculty  for  his  office.^*^     Accordingly,  the  laying  on 
of  hands  assumes  the  charisma  and  does  not  cause  it. 
The  consequence  is,  that  the  imposition  of  hands  upon 
one  who  is  elected  to  the  office  of  teacher  can  have  only 
the  effect  of  strengthening  or  confirming  the  charisma. 
It,  too,  represents  a  sort  of  exorcism ;  its  purpose  is  to 

vTTo  Beov  dvaBciKwrai.  Cf.  Canon.  Hippol.  VIII.  §§  53,  54.  Egypt.  Ch. 
Order,  c.  39  (Achelis,  C.  H.  p.  74).  Harnack,  Texte,  II.  5,  p.  74.  Accord- 
ing to  Eusebius,  H.  E.  VI.  43  :  14,  Novatian  was  treated  in  his  illness  by 
exorcists.  Passio  S.  Genesii,  c.  2  (Ruinart,  p.  237),  the  saint  in  his  illness 
calls  for  a  presbyter  with  the  exorcist.  Passio  S.  Procopii,  c.  1  (Ruinart, 
p.  311),  ibi  (in  Scythopolis)  ecclesiae  tria  ministeria  praebebat :  ununi 
in  legendi  officio,  alteruni  in  Syri  interpretatione  sermonis,  et  tertium 
adversus  daemones  manus  impositione  consummans.  He  was  at  once  lector 
(and  interpreter)  and  exorcist  —  the  imposition  of  hands  was  the  means 
employed  for  exorcism  as  well  as  for  healing.  The  passages  here  quoted 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Martyrs  belong  to  the  end  of  the  third  century  or- 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth.     See  further  Achelis,  ibid.  p.  157. 

1"  The  "seven  men"  were  akeady  "full  of  the  Spirit"  before  their 
ordination  (Acts  6  :  3,  5) ;  and  Barnabas  and  Paul  had  the  gifts  of 
prophecy  and  teaching  before  they  received  the  laying  on  of  hands 
(Acts  13  :  1,  3). 


262  THE   ASSEMBLY   FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

overcome  in  the  recipient  of  ordination  the  powers  of 
sin  which  oppose  his  charisma  and  hinder  its  free  exer- 
cise." Accordingly,  the  rite  does  not  generate  the  cha- 
risma, but  it  does  strengthen  it.  The  laying  on  of 
hands  in  ordination  signifies  substantially  confirmation. 
The  same  significance  appears  in  the  other  two  uses  of 
the  rite  which  were  early  developed  :  in  "  confirmation  " 
properly  so-called,  that  is,  the  laying  on  of  hands  which 
accompanied  baptism  ;  and  in  the  laying  on  of  hands  in 
the  case  of  absolution.  What  is  designed  in  all  these 
cases  is  a  strengthening  of  the  spiritual  power  which  is 
already  assumed  to  be  present  (in  the  elected  officer,  the 
baptized  person,  or  the  penitent),  and  the  complete 
overcoming  of  evil.^^     To  him  who  already  effectually 

'"■  In  this  we  have  an  explanation  of  the  view  which  attributed  to  the 
imposition  of  hands  in  ordination  the  effect  of  absolving  from  sins  — 
Concil.  Neocaesar.  (circa  314-325)  c.  9,  ra  yap  \oina  afiapTr]p.ara  (with  the 
exception  of  unchastity)  ((fiacrau  ol  ttoXXoi  koI  ttjv  x'^ipodeaiav  d(f)ievai..  We 
may  recall  here  the  "  confession  "  which  Timothy  made  on  the  occasion 
of  his  ordination  (1  Tim.  6  :  12).  Corresponding  to  this  we  have  the  op- 
posite view  that  through  sin  (viz.  deadly  sin)  the  effect  of  oi'dination  is 
obliterated :  1  Clem,  ad  Cor.  44 :  4,  the  deposition  of  the  bishops  is 
unjustifiable  only  so  long  as  they  perform  the  functions  of  their  office  "  iin- 
Uamably  and  piously  "  ;  Polyc.  ad  Phil.  11,  Valens  lost  his  office  because 
he  embezzled  Church  money  ;  Cypr.  ep.  66,  5,  7,  the  bishop  who  sins 
gravely  is  no  longer  a  legitimate  bishop  (cf .  ib.  67  :  3  &  70  :  2  ;  and  Apost. 
Const.  VIII.  2).  Hence  the  possibility  of  several  ordinations  —  cf.  the 
Galilean  inscription  of  the  year  461  (C.  1.  G.  9259)  mentioned  by  Hatch 
(p.  137  note),  h\s  yevopevos  npfa^vTfpos.  Catholicism,  owing  to  its  doctrine 
of  the  mechanical  effect  of  ordination,  had  to  give  up  the  practice  of  re- 
peating ordination.  Callistus,  it  is  well  known,  was  the  first  to  oppose 
Cyprian's  dictum  (Philosoph.  ix.  12),  ovtos  iboyparKrev,  onas  fl  enlaKonos 
dpapTot  Ti,  ft  iicai  npoi  ddvarov,  pfj  belv  KaTaridfaBai.  His  successor  Stephen 
confirmed  this  "  dogma  "  (O.  Ritschl,  Cyprian,  p.  138),  and  in  the  Donatist 
controversy  Augustine  found  himself  obliged  to  atlirm  the  inalienable 
character  of  ordination  {de  Baptism,  c.  Donat.  I.  c.  1).  Cf.  Ritschl, 
Entstehung,  pp.  566  sqq. 

^2  For  a  notion  of  the  inward  likeness  of  the  various  sorts  of  imposition 
of  hands  see  Apost.  Const.  III.  15  (confirmation  is  compared  to  ordina- 
tion —  one  gives  the  general  priesthood,  the  other  the  special),  and  ibid. 


§  18]  ELECTION  AND  ORDINATION  263 

possesses  the  gift  of  God's  Spirit  it  is  given  again,  by  the 
imposition  of  hands,  in  a  new  measure  for  deliverance 
from  the  power  of  sin. 

We  see  consequently  that  the  laying  on  of  hands  is 
a  transaction  of  a  purely  spiritual  nature.-^^  It  bestows 
no  formal  office  or  outward  authority  :  its  purpose  is  to 
strengthen  the  charisma  which  the  recipient  already 
possesses. 

Practically  considered,  the  laying  on  of  hands  repre- 
sents also  the  verification  of  the  possession  of  a  cha- 
risma, an  outward  testimony,  which,  like  the  whole 
act  of  ordination  (including  election),  and  the  letters 
of  commendation  which  frequently  accompanied  it, 
had  simply  the  effect  of  making  it  easier  in  point  of 
fact  for  the  recipient  to  obtain  recognition  of  his  voca- 
tion on  the  part  of  other  assemblies.^"* 

Let  us  consider  the  case  of  a  man  who  is  elected  to 

II.  39,  41  (the  imposition  of  hands  in  absolution  is  compared  to 
confirmation). 

13  Hence  the  association  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  with  prayer.  The 
above  interpretation  excludes  on  the  one  hand  the  Catholic  view,  according 
to  which  the  laying  on  of  hands  constitutes  the  source  and  origin  of  the 
charisma ;  and  on  the  other  the  interpretation  of  Ritschl  (Entstehung, 
p.  379),  which  makes  it  a  purely  outward  act,  a  mere  accompaniment  of 
prayer.  But  while  the  interpretation  in  the  text  draws  a  clear  distinction 
between  the  primitive  Christian  view  and  the  Catholic  (as  also  the 
Jewish),  it  yet  makes  it  clear  that  the  Catholic  view  was  a  natural  out- 
come of  the  primitive  conception. 

1*  From  this  point  of  view  it  is  possible  to  explain  the  two  phrases 
which  refer  to  Timothy's  charisma  (1  Tim.  4  :  14  ;  2  Tim.  1:6):  it  is 
said  in  the  one  place  that  he  possesses  his  charisma  8ia  7rpo(f)r]Tflas  fifra 
iTn6k(Tiu>s  Tu>v  xftpav;  and  in  the  other,  that  he  had  it  Slci  ttjs  fnideafoos  rati^ 
Xftpdiv.  The  prophecy  has  unquestionably  merely  the  value  of  a  testi- 
mony, but  in  both  passages  it  is  put  on  the  same  plane  with  the  imposi- 
tion of  hands.  The  8ia  denotes  in  both  cases  (as  the  first  passage  clearly 
shows),  not  the  causality  which  accounts  for  the  existence  of  the  charisma, 
but  that  which  accounts  for  its  recognition.  Most  modern  German  writers 
assume  a  discrepancy  between  these  two  passages,  and  interpret  the  latter 
in  the  Catholic  sense. 


264  THE   ASSEMBLY  FOR  INSTRUCTION  [III 

the  office  of  an  evangelist.  Shall  the  election  and  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  which  he  receives  guarantee  him  any 
legal  authority  or  privilege  in  relation  to  other  assem- 
blies ?  More  generally,  is  his  ordination  competent  to 
make  him  in  fact  an  evangelist  (apostle)  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 
Impossible !  The  office  which  he  is  called  upon  to 
exercise  signifies  an  office  of  Christendom,  not  merely 
of  this  or  that  individual  congregation.  There  can 
be  no  other  teaching  vocation  than  that  which  is  in- 
tended for  the  whole  Church.  He  is  also  elected  by 
Christendom,  for  every  assembly  of  Christians  in  the 
name  of  Christ  is  an  assembly  of  Christendom  (p.  138). 
Not  only  that  assembly  which  elected  him,  however, 
but  every  other  assembly  is  a  manifestation  of  Chris- 
tendom, and  equally  free  on  its  part  to  accord  or  to 
deny  him  recognition  as  a  teacher.  The  election  and 
ordination  has  therefore  no  legal  significance,  since 
the  electing  assembly  itself  does  not  constitute  a 
definite  legal  corporation  or  local  congregation,  the 
very  notion  of  the  individual  Church  being  unknown, 
and  only  the  notion  of  the  whole  Church  being  alive 
in  the  consciousness  of  early  Christianity.  Even  in 
relation  to  the  community  which  elects,  the  election 
and  ordination  as  such  confer  no  rights :  the  right 
to  claim  hearing  and  obedience  as  a  teacher  resides 
in  the  charisma;  with  or  without  the  vote  of  the 
congregation  that  right  exists,  but  without  the  cha- 
risma no  vote  can  create  the  right.  We  may  see 
from  this  that  it  is  essentially  indifferent  how  great 
or  how  small  was  the  electing  assembly,  or  where  it 
was  assembled.  It  is  only  with  a  view  to  obtaining 
practical  recognition  in  a  broader  sphere  that  the  size 
of  the  assembly  can  be  of  importance. 

The  fundamental  and  decisive  fact  which  determines 


§  IS]  ELECTION  AND  ORDINATION  265 

this  point,  and  in  general  the  whole  line  of  thought 
with  which  we  have  hitherto  been  occupied,  is  this : 
there  is  as  yet  within  Christendom  no  such  thing  as  a 
congregation  ivith  a  legal  organization  which  binds  and 
comprehends  the  individual  by  formal  ties.  As  yet 
there  are  only  assemblies  (Ecclesiae),  now  large  and 
now  small,  now  here  and  now  there,  mere  waves  as 
it  were,  rising  and  sinking  in  the  great  stream  of 
Christendom,  manifesting  visibly  the  life  and  power 
of  the  Church,  but  without  possessing  any  legal  rep- 
resentative authority.  The  assembly  being  once, 
dissolved,  no  trace  of  it  is  any  more  to  be  found. 
After  it,  as  before  it  and  in  it,  there  subsists  but  one 
sole  entity,  the  tvhole  Ecdesia  upon  earth,  and  by  its  very 
nature  this  universal  Church  (Christendom)  can  endure 
no  human  —  that  is,  no  legal  —  authority. 


CHAPTER    IV 
THE    EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY 

§  19,   THE   EUCHAETST  — ITS   SIGNIFICANCE   FOE 
CHURCH   ORDER  AND   ORGANIZATION 

WE  have  seen  bow  the  charismatic  organization 
of  Christendom  (the  body  of  Christ)  was  mani- 
fested, and  in  a  sense  formulated,  in  the  assembUes  for 
instruction.  These  assemblies,  however,  as  they  have 
been  described  above,  contained  hardly  any  elements 
which  might  serve  even  as  a  starting-point  for  the 
legal  organization  which  was  subsequently  developed. 
Neither  apostles,  prophets,  nor  teachers  ever  attained 
a  legal  status  in  the  Church ;  and  the  free  service  of 
instruction  itself  disappeared  with  the  development  of 
Catholicism. 

One  sort  of  assembly  there  was,  however,  w^iich  goes 
far  to  explain  the  subsequent  development  of  Church 
order  and  organization,  —  the  Eucharistic  assembly. 
The  Eucharist  is  the  highest  expression  of  the  spiritual 
worship  of  the  Church,  but  none  the  less  it  is  —  and  in 
a  still  greater  degree  it  was  —  the  most  material  feature 
of  Christian  worship.  It  exhibits  the  paradox  which  is 
so  deeply  characteristic  of  Christianity  as  a  whole  and 
of  the  very  nature  of  its  Founder  —  the  spiritual  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh.  There  is  hardly  any  element  essen- 
tial to  the  Eucharist  which  is  not  material  —  there  is 
none,    however,   which    is   not    spiritual.     A   material 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  267 

feast  is  here  the  symbol  of  a  spiritual  fellowship  (with 
Christ  and  with  the  brotherhood)  and  the  medium  of 
a  heavenly  nourishment.  We  have  seen  that  the  Catho- 
lic or  legal  conception  of  Christianity  was  not  a  primi- 
tive conception ;  therefore  it  was  not  an  implication  of 
the  primitive  Eucharist.  This  feast  spiritualized  even 
the  material  elements  that  composed  it  —  offerings  in 
money  and  in  kind  (in  short,  Church  property),  as  well 
as  the  consecrated  oblations  which  were  received  as  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  A  legal  notion  was  not 
necessarily  involved  in  this  :  it  was  indeed  theoretically 
excluded.  But  in  point  of  fact  it  was  in  connection 
with  the  Eucharist  and  the  Eucharistic  assembly  that 
a  legal  conception  of  the  congregation  and  of  the  minis- 
try was  first  formulated.  When  the  spiritual  forces 
that  were  at  work  in  the  Church  became  feeble,  such  a 
conception  of  the  nature  of  the  Christian  society  must 
have  appeared  obvious,  if  not  inevitable,  and  the  Eucha- 
ristic assembly  constituted  the  readiest  point  of  appli- 
cation for  it.  The  reason  in  short  is  this,  that  the 
Eucharistic  assembly  was  the  assembly  which  exhib- 
ited the  congregation  in  its  most  definite  and  exclusive 
character,  and  the  ministry  in  its  most  definite  and 
exclusive  functions. 

To  make  here  a  detailed  investigation  into  the  char- 
acter and  procedure  of  the  Eucharistic  assembly  would 
be  by  no  means  foreign  to  our  present  purpose,  but  it 
would  involve  a  digression  from  the  direct  line  of  our 
argument.  The  study  of  the  Eucharist  involves  and 
explains  some  of  the  largest  problems  of  early  Church 
history.  For,  aside  from  all  doctrinal  questions,  not 
only  is  the  form  of  the  Catholic  organization  (bishop^ 
deacons,  presbyters)  determined  by  it,  but  the  whole 
development   of  the  liturgy   centres   in   it,  the   whole 


268  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

economic  administration  derives  from  it,  and  the  very 
character  of  the  Chnrch  building  (the  basilica  and  every 
subsequent  form)  is  prescribed  by  it. 

The  essential  features,  however,  of  the  Eucharistic 
assembly  and  the  main  lines  of  its  development  are  so 
simple  that  they  can  be  described  in  a  few  words,  and 
so  palpable  that  they  hardly  admit  of  controversy. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  earliest  time  the 
Eucharist  was  celebrated  in  conjunction  with  the  agape 
in  a  private  house  where  all  the  disciples  were  gathered 
about  a  common  table.  It  may  appear  as  though  there 
were  little  room  here  for  distinctions  of  rank,  and  not 
much  to  suggest  the  development  of  a  formal  organiza- 
tion. But  both  Gentile  and  Jewish  usage  required  a 
president  at  the  feast,  and  this  was  particularly  the 
;j|case  with  regard  to  the  Passover,  from  which  the  Eu- 
'  charistic  feast  was  derived.  In  the  Eucharist  there 
were  two  functions  especially  that  fell  to  the  part  of 
the  president :  namely,  the  breaking  of  the  bread,  and 
the  thanksgiving  prayer  —  both  of  them  acts  which  are 
so  characteristic  of  this  sacrament  that  they  have  given 
us  the  two  names  under  which  it  has  been  most  com- 
monly known  in  primitive  and  later  times.  Obviously, 
these  acts  must  be  performed  by  one  person.  Such  was 
the  significance  of  these  acts  that  whosoever  performed 
them  was  thereby  constituted  president  of  the  feast, 
with  all  that  this  office  implied  in  the  way  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Eucharist  and  the  disposition  of  the 
oblations.  For  he  who  performed  these  acts  was  recog- 
nized as  sitting  in  Christ's  seat,  blessing  as  he  blessed, 
breaking  the  loaf  as  he  brake  it,  and  distributing  like 
him  the  bread  and  wine  to  the  disciples. 

This  is  not  to  say  that  the  right  to  celebrate  the  Eu- 
charist belonged  exclusively  to  any  one  class  of  officers 


§19]  THE  EUCHARIST  269 

or  to  a  formally  appointed  president.  The  common 
priesthood  of  all  believers  means  very  little,  if  it  does 
not  mean  that  each  is  inherently  capable  of  breaking 
the  bread  and  offering  the  prayer  of  thanksgiving  to 
God  at  the  Eucharistic  feast.  Christ's  promise  to  be 
with  his  disciples  wherever  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together  is  surely  general  enough  to  include  the  Eu- 
charistic assembly;  and  where  Christ  is  among  his 
disciples  there  is  the  whole  Church  and  all  the  powers 
of  it.  These  ideas  were  still  current  as  late  as  the  be- 
ginning of  the  third  century,  as  we  see  from  Tertullian's 
well  known  saying :  ^  "  Are  not  also  we  laity  priests  ? 
.  .  .  When  there  are  no  clergy  thou  makest  the  offering 
and  baptizest  and  art  priest  for  thyself  alone.  When 
three  are  present,  there  is  the  Church,  although  they  be 
laymen."  Tertullian  does  not  contend  for  this  principle, 
he  merely  assumes  it  as  a  premise  for  his  argument : 
therein  lies  the  proof  that  it  was  not  an  individual 
opinion  of  his  own,  nor  a  distinctive  tenet  of  Mon- 
tanism,  but  a  commonly  accepted  position,  a  primitive 
tradition  which  had  not  yet  been  successfully  impugned. 
At  the  same  time,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  in 
Tertullian's  age,  so  far  as  the  Eucharist  is  concerned, 
this  was  hardly  more  than  a  theoretical  position.  Even 
in  the  earliest  age  this  principle,  as  Tertullian  expresses 
it,  did  not  aptly  represent  the  common  view  or  practice, 
simply  because  the  idea  of  an  exclusive  priesthood  or 
clems  within  the  Church  was  not  yet  distinctly  con- 
ceived :  whoever  presided  at  the  Eucharist  was  ipso  facto 
regarded  as  an  officer,  and  in  the  early  Church  there 
was  no  more  definite  criterion  of  office  than  this.  Then 
too,  the  conditions  posited  by  Tertullian  were  realized 
only  in  rare  cases  of   necessity.     The   primitive  idea 

^  De  exhort,  cast.  c.  7. 


270  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

that  every  gathering  of  disciples,  though  they  be  but 
two  or  three,  constitutes  a  Church,  did  not  tend  to 
make  men  content  with  the  minimum  expression  of 
Christian  fellowship  —  rather  it  prompted  the  effort 
to  make  every  assembly  of  Christendom  practically 
coincident  so  far  as  possible  with  the  local  brotherhood 
(see  p.  131).  This  was  especially  true  of  the  'Eucha- 
ristic  assembly,  for  the  Eucharist  was  the  preeminent 
expression  of  the  social  side  of  Christianity.  Where 
only  two  or  three  could  get  together,  doubtless  they 
alone  broke  bread  in  memory  of  their  Lord.  But  that 
was  an  exception. 

It  seems,  however,  to  have  been  by  no  means  excep- 
tional for  the  disciples  to  meet  together  for  the  Eucharist, 
as  for  other  purposes,  in  assemblies  which  comprised 
only  a  part  of  the  local  brotherhood.  There  were 
assemblies  (^'Churches")  which  were  accustomed  to 
meet,  with  what  regularity  we  do  not  know,  in  this 
or  that  private  house.  It  is  likely  that  there  were 
several  distinct  assemblies  of  this  sort  in  every  consider- 
able town.  We  can  readily  represent  to  ourselves 
that  in  the  earliest  period  the  number  that  could  meet 
in  one  place  was  restricted  by  the  limitations  of  the 
room  and  by  other  conditions;  and  it  is  evident  that 
by  the  time  the  Church  was  able  to  construct  appro- 
priate houses  for  worship  the  number  of  disciples  had 
already  grown  too  great  to  be  united  in  one  building. 
Such  at  least  must  have  been  the  situation  in  the 
larger  towns.  Yet  in  spite  of  such  distinct  assemblies 
or  Churches  it  was  customary,  as  we  see  from  the 
Apocalypse  as  well  as  from  St.  Paul's  epistles,  to 
describe  the  totality  of  the  disciples  in  one  town  as 
the  Church  in  that  place.  The  conception  of  unity 
was  strong,  and  without  implying  any  disparagement 


§  19]  THE   EUCHARIST  271 

of  the  more  partial  expressions  of  the  local  Church, 
there  seems  from  the  first  to  have  been  a  distinction 
drawn  between  such  minor  assemblies,  and  what  we 
may  call  the  principal  assembly,  the  assembly  which 
counted  as  an  assembly  of  the  whole  local  community, 
even  if  all  were  not  actually  included  in  it  at  any 
given  time  (see  pp.  121,  131).  It  is  the  principal 
assembly  for  the  Eucharist  which  was  of  chief  impor- 
tance for  the  development  of  Church  organization  — 
thouorh  the  existence  of  minor  Eucharistic  assemblies 
may  perhaps  explain  one  feature  of  early  organization ; 
namely,  the  plurality  of  bishops. 

The  Eucharistic  feast  requires  a  president  —  that 
was  one  of  the  first  suggestions  which  prompted  the 
development  of  formal  ofiice  in  the  Church.  All  could 
not  preside  at  the  Eucharist  at  once,  neither  was  it 
appropriate  that  each  should  preside  in  tarn,  from 
the  greatest  unto  the  least.  Who  then  shall  preside 
at  the  Eucharist  ?  The  answer  presented  no  theoretical 
difficulty,  though  it  might  be  embarrassed  in  practice 
by  jealousies  and  differences  of  personal  judgment. 
Whether  the  assembly  were  large  or  small,  the  question 
was  the  same :  substantially  it  was  equivalent  to  the 
question.  Who,  among  those  present  at  the  particular 
time  and  place,  is  most  worthy  to  sit  in  the  seat  of 
Christ  ?  Such  being  the  nature  of  the  choice,  it  is 
obvious  that  in  the  same  community  and  under  the 
same  conditions  there  would  be  a  certain  permanence 
in  the  presidency  —  it  was  ever  the  most  highly  revered 
disciple  that  must  preside.  But  this  did  not  imply 
as  of  necessity  a  formal  appointment,  still  less  did  it 
constitute  a  legal  right. 

But  the  conditions  were  not  always  the  same.  If, 
for  example,  an  apostle  were  resident  in  the  community 


272  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

or  present  as  a  visitor,  he,  no  doubt,  must  have  pre- 
sided. So  at  Troas  it  was  St.  Paul  who  broke  the 
bread  (Acts  20  :  11).  At  Jerusalem,  where  there  were 
many  apostles,  it  was  St.  James,  we  must  imagine, 
who,  on  account  of  the  veneration  in  which  he  was 
held  as  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  was  accorded  the  Lord's 
place  at  the  Eucharistic  table.  Lacking  an  apostle, 
an  evangelist  might  assume  this  honor  as  a  matter  of 
course.  The  position  of  leadership  which  Timothy 
enjoyed  at  Ephesus  and  Titus  at  Crete  surely  implies 
presidency  in  the  Eucharistic  assembly  as  well  as  pre- 
eminent authority  in  the  assembly  for  instruction.  The 
evangelist  of  a  later  type  whom  we  encounter  in  the 
Didache  under  the  name  of  ^"^ apostle"  must  have  pre- 
sided at  the  Eucharist,  for  he  was  to  be  "  received  as 
the  Lord  "  (xi.  4).  At  all  events,  this  same  book  (x.  7) 
incidentally  reveals  the  fact  that  the  prophets,  who 
came  next  in  rank,  might  be  expected  to  offer  the 
Eucharistic  prayer,  and  that  with  a  freedom  which 
was  not  permitted  to  the  bishops,  who  were  at  that 
time  already  bound  to  a  formula.  In  short,  the  same 
officers  that  enjoyed  leadership  in  the  assemblies  for 
instruction  —  the  charismatically  endowed  teachers  — 
were  the  natural  presidents  of  the  Eucharist  —  ivhen 
such  ivere  to  he  had.  The  gifted  teachers  were  those 
that  enjoyed  the  highest  consideration  in  Christendom, 
and  hence  the  presidency  at  the  "table  of  the  Lord," 
—  for  this  reason  among  others,  that  the  most  distinc- 
tively religious  act  in  connection  with  the  Eucharist 
was  the  prayer,  and  prayer  was  a  function  of  the 
teaching  gift. 

But  such  spiritual  teachers  were  not  always  to  be 
had.  Even  in  the  Apostolic  Age  they  were  the  excep- 
tion rather  than  the  rule.    The  Eucharist,  however,  was 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  273 

an  ordinary,  a  weekly  festival ;  it  might  not  be  deferred 
to  await  the  coming  of  a  teacher  of  the  higher  sort,  and 
indeed  it  needed  no  extraordinary  gifts  for  its  admin- 
istration. It  was  incmnbent  upon  the  disciples  to 
appoint  the  fittest  of  their  number  to  this  dignity.  The 
choice  would  naturally  be  made  from  among  the  older 
men  of  the  congregation  (TrpecrySvrepot),  those  more 
particularly  who  had  had  the  longest  experience  of  the 
Christian  faith. 

The  elders  were  more  or  less  distinctly  recognized  as 
a  class  within  the  community,  though  without  any 
official  status  whatever.  The  earliest  distinction  within 
the  Church  —  apart  from  such  as  were  due  to  extraor- 
dinary spiritual  endowments  —  was  the  general  dis- 
tinction of  elder  and  younger.  Seniority  has  ever  been 
one  of  the  chief  grounds  of  precedence  or  presidency, 
and  it  was  as  natural  for  the  president  of  the  Eucharist 
(the  bishop)  to  be  chosen  from  among  the  elders,  as  for 
the  ministers  at  the  Eucharist  (the  deacons)  to  be  cho- 
sen from  the  younger  men. 

But  there  were  a  number  of  elders,  of  whom  some 
only  were  to  be  appointed  to  this  dignity.  What  were 
the  grounds  of  choice  ?  In  St.  Paul's  epistles  to  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  ^  the  moral  character  of  the  bishop  is 
what  is  chiefly  insisted  upon.  No  exceptional  virtue  is 
required,  in  particular  no  ascetic  virtue  :  he  must  be  an 
elder  who  manifests  a  sterling  character  in  all  social 
relations,  but  particularly  as  husband  and  father,  having 
"  good  testimony  from  them  that  are  without "  as  well 
as  the  esteem   of   the  brethren,^     In  Titus  1:7  he   is 

2  1  Tim.  3:1-7;  Titus  1 :  5-9. 

2  In  the  Didache,  xv.  1  the  character  required  of  bishops  and  deacons 
is  summed  up  in  the  phrase  "  worthy  of  the  Lord  "  :  it  is  added  that  they 
must  be  "  men  of  meek  temper,  and  not  lovers  of  money,  and  true,  and 
approved  ;  for  they  perform  for  you  the  same  ministry  as  the  prophets 

18 


274  THE   EUCIIARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

called  "  God's  steward,"  and  in  both  passages  it  is  re- 
quired that  he  be  "not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre"  — this 
evidently  in  view  of  the  fact  that  as  president  of  the 
Eucharist  he  must  receive  and  dispense  the  gifts  which 
were  there  brought,  and  which  constituted  the  main 
source  of  Church  property. 

The  assumption  is  that  the  bishop  is  not  possessed  of 
extraordinary  gifts  of  teaching ;  and  yet  some  practical 
talent  of  teaching  is  required  of  him.  Teaching  is  the 
highest  function  in  Christendom,  and  we  can  hardly 
conceive  that  one  who  was  not  distinguished  among  his 
brethren  for  acquaintance  with  the  truth  and  for  power 
to  teach  could  have  been  accorded  the  presidency  in 
any  assembly  or  Church.  In  1  Tim.  3  :  2  it  is  required 
merely  that  the  bishop  be  "  apt  to  teach  "  {StBaKTiKOp) :  in 
Titus  1  :  9  this  is  expanded,  —  "  holding  to  the  faithful 
word  which  is  according  to  the  teaching  (8tSacrK:aXca), 
that  he  may  be  able  both  to  exhort  in  sound  doctrine 
{SiSaxr}),  and  to  convict  the  gainsayers."  This  implies 
that  the  bishop's  faculty  for  teaching  found  exercise  in 
other  spheres  besides  the  Eucharistic  assembly,  namely, 
in  public  instruction,  in  private  counsel,  and  in  a  gen- 
eral oversight  of  the  affairs  of  the  community.  How 
could  it  have  been  otherwise  ?     On  the  one  hand,  it  is 


and  teachers.  Despise  them  not,  therefore,  for  they  are  the  honored 
(reTiixrinivoi)  among  you  together  with  the  prophets  and  teachers."  Like- 
wise one  of  the  tests  of  the  true  prophet  (xi.  8)  is  the  observation  that  he 
"  has  the  ways  of  the  Lord  "  (tovs  rponovs  Kvpiov).  It  is  an  implication 
of  this  book  that  the  bishops  and  deacons  are  primarily  Eucharistic 
officers,  but  it  is  assumed  that  they  might  also  perform  various  other 
offices  which  belonged  especially  to  the  prophets  and  teachers.  The 
bishop  was  the  ordinary  president  of  the  Eucharist,  but  so  little  did  this 
constitute  a  right  over  the  Eucharist,  that  any  prophet  who  was  present 
was  expected  to  take  the  seat  of  honor  and  offer  the  prayer  (x.  7).  The 
most  significant  factor  in  the  development  of  Church  organization  was 
the  gradual  fixing  of  the  bishop's  rights  over  the  Eucharist. 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  275 

evident  that  the  men  who  most  laid  themselves  out  to 
minister  to  the  material  or  spiritual  needs  of  the  congre- 
gation, who  were  most  looked  to  for  counsel  and  help, 
would  be  the  ones  most  naturally  chosen  as  presidents 
of  the  Eucharist :  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  less  clear 
that  this  dignity,  the  most  expressly  official  dignity  in 
Christendom,  must  have  implied  a  general  superintend- 
ence of  congregational  affairs  —  and  all  the  more  so 
because  the  distribution  of  the  Church  funds  belonged 
essentially  to  the  office.  The  name  eVto-K-oTrog,  by 
which  such  officers  were  known,  characterizes  them 
with  respect  rather  to  these  wider  functions  than  to 
the  specific  function  of  presiding  at  the  Eucharistic 
assembly.  In  Acts  20  :  28  St.  Paul  says  to  the  bishops 
from  Ephesus,  "  Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all 
the  flock,  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bish- 
ops (or  overseers),  to  feed  the  Church  of  God."  But 
we  must  remember  that  it  was  the  connection  with  the 
Eucharist  which  gave  the  bishops  an  official  dignity,  and 
which  explains  the  subsequent  development  of  their 
office. 

The  deacons  were  as  closely  associated  with  the  Eu- 
charist as  was  the  bishop,  and  for  the  most  part  their, 
functions  were  obviously  determined  by  that  relation. 
This  office  corresponded  to  a  practical  need :  it  was  nec- 
essary that  some  persons  should  be  appointed  to  serve 
the  disciples  as  they  sat  at  table  —  a  service  whicli 
was  no  mere  formality  so  long  as  the  Eucharist  and 
the  love  feast  were  one.  The  selection  for  such  a  ser- 
vice would  naturally  be  made  from  among  the  younger 
men.  But  it  was  characteristic  of  Christianity  to  regard 
every  service  in  the  Church  as  a  claim  to  honor  (cf. 
Luke  22  :  26,  27) ;  and  moreover  it  is  generally  true 
that  any  official  distinction,  in  a  community  that  knows 


276  THE  EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

few  distinctions  of  rank,  is  apt  to  become  an  honorable 
distinction. 

The  moral  qualifications  of  the  deacons,  as  required 
in  1  Tim.  3  :  8-13,  are  substantially  the  same  as  those 
expected  of  the  bishop.  Bishops  and  deacons  were 
closely  related,  as  the  nature  of  their  functions  at  the 
Eucharist  explains,  and  hence  it  is  that  they  were  com- 
monly mentioned  together.  Outside  of  the  assembly 
the  deacons  acted  as  the  bishop's  agents  in  distributing 
the  alms  of  the  Church.  This  service  tended  to  become 
more  and  more  important.  Even  in  the  earliest  period 
it  must  have  brought  them  into  such  close  personal  rela- 
tions with  the  congregation  as  sufficiently  explains  the 
functions  of  private  counsel  and  instruction  with  which 
we  find  them  charged  in  the  second  century.  The  power 
and  importance  of  the  deacons  advanced  ^jan  passu  with 
the  increasing  authority  of  the  bishop.  There  is  no 
point  in  regard  to  the  organization  of  the  early  Church 
which  is  in  the  main  so  simple  as  the  position  of  these 
officers. 

The  position  of  the  elders  or  presbyters  cannot  be  so 
clearly  defined,  and  the  right  apprehension  of  the  sub- 
ject has  been  prejudiced  by  age-long  misconception. 
The  name  elder  indicated  originally  no  formal  office 
whatever,  but  only  a  vaguely  defined  class  of  persons 
who  were  distinguished  for  their  greater  age,  or  longer 
experience  of  the  Christian  life.  The  bishops  were  se- 
lected from  this  class,  and  so  might  be  spoken  of  gen- 
erally as  elders.  Hence  the  confusion  that  has  so  long 
prevailed  about  these  two  names.  But  some  apostles, 
too,  were  known  by  this  title ;  and  at  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  long  after  it  had  become  an  official  title, 
it  was  still  used  quite  in  the  early  sense  to  denote  certain 
of  the  converts  of  the  apostles. 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  277 

The  distinction  between  the  elder  and  the  younger 
members  of  the  congregation  was  fundamentally  inde- 
pendent of  the  Eucharist ;  but  it  was  in  the  Eucharistic 
assembly  that  it  received  the  most  express  recognition, 
and  it  was  with  the  development  of  the  Eucharistic 
service  that  the  elders  gradually  acquired  official  rank 
and  precise  functions  as  the  council  of  the  bishop  and 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  —  becoming  them- 
selves in  the  final  development  the  ordinary  presidents 
of  the  Eucharist  and  the  sole  parochial  pastors. 

To  understand  how  the  elders  might  attain  an  official 
status  in  connection  with  the  Eucharist,  it  is  necessary 
to  reflect  upon  the  fact  that  feasts  are  commonly  and 
quite  naturally  the  occasion  of  marking  rank  and  prece- 
dence. The  Lord's  rebuke  of  such  as  sought  the  "  chief 
place  at  feasts"  was  the  more  likely  to  be  preserved  in 
the  tradition  and  recorded  in  the  Gospels  because  it  had 
a  pungent  application  to  contemporary  Christian  prac- 
tice.* At  all  events,  it  proves  the  custom,  which  was  in 
fact  well  nigh  universal,  of  marking  distinctions  of  rank 
by  the  place  assigned  at  table.  We  have  to  suppose 
that  the  elders  would  occupy  the  chief  places  on  either 
side  of  the  president  at  the  head  of  the  Eucharistic  table.^ 

*  Love  of  the  "  chief  place  at  feasts  "(TrparoKXitria)  is  rebuked  in  Luke 
14  :  7,  8  ;  20 :  46  ;  Matt.  23  :  6  ;  Mark  12  :  39.  The  last  three  passages 
speak  likewise  of  coveting  the  "  chief  seats  in  the  synagogues  "  (vpoiTOKa- 
dedpia).  We  know  nothing  about  the  seating  in  Christian  assemblies  for 
instruction  during  the  first  century.  James  2 :  2,  3,  in  which  the 
Christian  house  of  worship  is  called  a  "  synagogue,"  seems  to  imply  a 
president  of  the  assembly ;  but  otherwise  it  witnesses  rather  against  than 
for  a  custom  of  seating  according  to  ecclesiastical  rank.  Early  in  the 
second  century,  as  we  learn  from  Hermas,  ambition  after  official  rank  was 
still  expressed  as  a  desire  for  the  chief  seats  at  the  Eucharistic  table  — 
that  is,  the  presbyters'  seats  on  either  side  of  the  bishop  and  behind  the 
holy  table. 

5  In  considering  the  development  of  the  offices  of  bishop,  deacon,  and 
presbyter  I  ignore  for  the  moment  the  disturbing  effect  which  the  possible 


278  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

Vague  as  this  distinction  was  at  first,  it  was  probably 
the  most  formal  that  they  enjoyed.  We  shall  see  now 
how  this  distinction  became  more  marked  with  the 
development  of  the  Eucharistic  ritual. 

There  was  one  crisis  in  the  development  of  the  Eu- 
charistic celebration  which  was  fraught  with  the 
weightiest  significance  for  future  institutions.  The 
change  therein  accomplished  was  a  double  one  :  it  con- 
sisted in  the  first  place  in  the  separation  of  the  Eucha- 
rist from  the  agape  ;  and  in  the  second  place  in  its 
union  with  the  general  service  of  instruction  and  wor- 

presence  of  "  gifted  teachers  "  (apostles,  evangelists,  prophets)  might 
have  upon  the  arrangement  of  the  Eucharistic  table.  The  presence  of 
any  of  the  higher,  charismatic  officers  must  have  had  a  profound  effect 
upon  the  whole  situation  :  it  must  in  fact  have  inhibited,  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree,  the  development  of  this  secondary  and  substitutionary 
organization.  The  bishop  was  nothing  more  than  a  substitute  for  the 
charismatic  teacher,  and  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  what  part  he  could 
have  played  so  long  as  an  apostle  or  evangelist  was  resident  in  the  com- 
munity. With  the  coming  of  such  a  personage  the  bishop  must  have 
fallen  back  temporarily  into  the  rank  of  the  presbyters.  Where  charis- 
matic gifts  were  more  common,  we  might  expect  that  the  episcopal 
organization  —  I  speak  now  of  the  plural  episcopate  —  would  be  later 
developed  or  be  develoj^ed  with  less  definiteness.  This  accords  with  the 
fact,  as  I  take  it  to  be,  that  this  organization  was  not  everywhere 
developed  at  the  same  time.  It  accords  as  well  with  the  fact  that  plural 
episcopacy  was  ultimately  established  in  all  parts  of  the  Church,  attaining 
its  logical  development  in  the  form  of  monepiscopacy.  This  whole  de- 
velopment was  accomplished  without  controversy,  so  far  as  we  know. 
As  the  higher  charismatic  ministry  every  where  vanished  from  the  scene, 
the  bishops  every  where  took  their  place  —  as  they  had  done  from  the  be- 
ginning in  the  many  places  where  gifted  teachers  were  rarely  to  be  had. 
Apostles  and  evangelists  vanished  first,  prophets  and  teachers  lingered 
later.  As  episcopacy  became  fixed  and  traditional  it  tended  to  resist  en- 
croachment upon  its  prerogatives.  Prophets  and  teachers  might  enter 
this  new  system  only  by  being  assimilated  to  it — that,  is  by  becoming 
bishops.  This,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  was  not  uncommon  about  the 
turn  of  the  second  century.  On  the  other  hand  the  intrusion  of  the 
evangelist  or  "apostle  "  was  rendered  impossible  by  the  rule  which  we 
find  in  the  Didache  forbidding  him  to  remain  in  any  settled  congi'egation 
for  more  than  one  day,  or  two  at  the  longest. 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  279 

ship.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  these  two 
changes  were  simultaneous,  for  each  seems  to  be  in  a 
measure  dej)endent  upon  the  other.  The  effect  of  the 
change  was  momentous,  as  well  for  organization  as  for 
the  liturgy  and  for  church  architecture.  But  before 
considering  particularly  the  character  of  the  change  and 
its  effects,  we  may  inquire  into  its  causes,  which  in  the 
main  are  so  simple  that  they  need  not  detain  us  long. 

The  Church  could  not  but  be  conscious  of  the  in- 
convenience of  assembling  twice  upon  the  same  day  : 
at  one  time  and  place  for  the  service  of  instruction ; 
and  again,  and  perhaps  at  different  places,  for  the  Eu- 
charist. Yet  these  two  assemblies  could  hardly  be 
united  so  long  as  the  Eucharist  was  associated  with  a 
hearty  meal :  if  they  were  held  at  the  same  place,  the 
room  which  would  hold  the  assembly  as  it  was  gathered 
for  instruction  might  not  accommodate  the  same  num- 
ber at  table ;  if  held  at  the  same  time,  the  paraphernalia 
of  the  agape  would  be  distracting  to  the  service  of 
worship.  Another  consideration  was  still  more  serious. 
Association  with  the  agape  definitely  limited  the  num- 
ber of  persons  that  could  convene  in  one  place  for  the 
celebration  of  the  Eucharist ;  so  that  with  the  numerical 
growth  of  the  Church  it  became  more  and  more  impos- 
sible to  make  this  feast  what  it  aspired  to  be,  the  symbol 
of  the  unity  of  the  whole  local  brotherhood.  The  prin- 
cij)al  assembly  for  instruction  might  actually  comprise 
the  greater  part  of  the  congregation,  while  the  Eucharist 
must  be  celebrated  by  smaller  groups  scattered  among 
several  houses.  This  situation  may  have  long  endured, 
and  it  may  perhaps  explain  the  plurality  of  bishops. 
But  with  the  rapid  expansion  of  the  Church  the  situation 
became  ever  more  intolerable.  The  Eucharist  itself 
prompted  a  strong  trend  towards  the  expression  of  unity. 


280  THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

Many  other  considerations  may  have  conduced  to  the 
same  end,  but  what  has  been  said  suffices  to  explain  the 
fact  that  the  Eucharist  was  ultimately  freed  from  the  re- 
strictions of  the  agape  and  united  with  the  service  of 
instruction,  constituting  with  it  one  principal  assembly, 
at  which  upon  every  Lord's  day  all  Christians  from  the 
town  and  the  surrounding  country  were  expected  to  be 
present.  A  logical  corollary  of  this  development,  if  not 
an  immediate  consequent,  was  the  single  episcopate. 

When  this  change  came  about  it  is  not  possible  to  fix 
with  precision.  We  learn  from  Justin  Martyr  that  the 
new  order  was  every  where  completely  developed  before 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.  I  may  say  at  once 
that  I  am  disposed  to  attribute  the  origin  of  this  change 
to  the  very  earliest  years  of  that  century.  Many  gen- 
eral considerations  favor  this,  and  there  is  no  concrete 
fact  to  oppose  it.^     But  it  is  not  necessary  —  indeed  it 

^  Great  difference  of  opiniou  exists  about  the  date  of  the  Didache. 
On  general  grounds  I  am  disposed  to  attribute  this  work  (in  which  the 
Eucharist  seems  still  to  be  associated  with  the  agape)  to  the  last  years  of 
the  first  century.  Pliny's  letter  to  Trajan  (about  a.  d.  110)  is  by  many 
supposed  to  indicate  the  change  referred  to  in  the  text.  Pliny  says  that 
the  Christians  in  Bithyuia  were  accustomed  to  assemble  a  second  time 
every  Sunday  to  partake  of  a  "  harmless  meal,"  which  practice  they  dis- 
continued agreeably  to  his  injunction.  If  we  may  assume  that  the 
Eucharist  then  formed  part  of  this  meal,  we  may  infer  that  it  was  at 
that  time  separated  from  the  agape  and  celebrated  at  the  early  morning 
assembly  in  such  purely  symbolical  fashion  as  would  not  arouse  the  sus- 
picion which  the  Roman  government  entertained  of  club  banquets.  If 
this  be  so  we  must  recognize  another  motive  which  may  very  well  have 
operated  occasionally  to  reinforce  those  we  have  already  considered. 
The  Christians  of  Bithynia  would  certainly  be  the  more  ready  to  comply 
with  the  demand  of  the  governor,  if  the  change  to  which  they  were 
forced  had  already  been  made  in  other  and  moi-e  important  Churches. 
In  general,  it  must  have  been  the  smaller  Churches  that  adhered  longest 
to  the  old  custom,  because  their  numbers  had  not  grown  too  great  for  all 
to  meet  at  a  common  agape.  Under  such  conditions,  however,  the 
change  was  apt  to  be  less  radical  and  momentous  for  the  smaller 
Churches  than  for  the  greater.     For  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  smaller 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  281 

is  far  from  plausible  —  to  suppose  that  the  change 
occurred  everywhere  at  the  same  time ;  nor  need  we 
imagine  that  where  the  change  was  once  made  it  en- 
tirely excluded  the  older  custom.  Practical  convenience 
was  the  motive  of  the  change,  and  consequently  there 
was  no  dogmatic  interest  in  exacting  rigorous  compli- 
ance with  the  new  custom  —  which,  moreover,  was  at 
first  the  custom  of  the  principal  assembly  alone.  Long 
after  the  new  custom  was  established  it  seems  to  have 
been  common  for  smaller  groups  to  celebrate  the  Eucha- 
rist or  agape  ^  seated  about  a  common  table.     There  are 

communities  knew  from  first  to  last  but  one  Eucharistic  assembly,  and 
consequently  but  one  bishop;  whereas  in  the  great  cities  the  develop- 
ment of  the  monepiscopal  regime  was  retarded  by  the  existing  organiza- 
tion. One  needs  hardly  to  be  reminded  that  the  position  of  the  early 
Catholic  bishop,  in  all  but  the  great  cities,  was  that  of  a  parochial  pastor, 
presiding  over  a  single  congregation. 

■^  See  Lightfoot,  Ignatius,  vol.  II.  p.  312,  note  2.  Lightfoot  supposes 
(chiefly  on  the  ground  of  Smyrn.  c.  8),  that  the  separation  of  the  Eucha- 
rist from  the  agape  had  not  taken  place  at  the  time  Ignatius  wrote.  I 
too  interpret  the  word  agape  in  this  text  as  denoting  a  Eucharistic  cele- 
bration ;  but  I  suppose  that  the  more  formal  and  solemn  Eucharist  was 
by  this  time  celebrated  in  connection  with  the  morning  service  of  in- 
struction, while  beside  it,  in  smaller  circles,  the  Eucharistic  agape  (an 
evening  meal)  still  survived  as  a  memorial  of  the  original  form  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  (1  Cor.  9  :  17  sqq.).  But  we  must  beware  not  to  speak  of 
the  Eucharist  as  though  it  were  a  separable  constituent  readily  distin- 
guished from  the  agape.  It  is  unhistorical  to  import  this  discrimination 
into  the  early  age.  The  agape  loas  the  Eucharist.  St.  Paul's  denuncia- 
tion of  the  disorders  at  Corinth  reveals,  not  a  disorderly  supper  preceding 
the  Eucharist,  but  a  drunken  and  gluttonous  Eucharist.  The  agape  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  alike  denoted  a  common  meal,  in  which,  among  other 
articles  of  food,  the  bread  and  wine  that  were  consumed  were  received  as 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.  Along  side  of  the  general  morning  cele- 
bration on  the  Lord's  Day,  the  primitive  supper  was  long  maintained. 
In  Xorth  Africa  at  least  it  was  observed  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  third 
century  —  apparently  among  the  clergy  alone.  The  agape  as  we  know  it 
at  the  end  of  the  third  century  was  completely  divested  of  its  higher  re- 
ligious associations :  it  soon  suffered  from  abuse,  and  before  long  fell 
into  disuse.  This  late  agape,  a  purely  secular  residuum  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  agape  of  the  earlier  age. 


282  THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

crypts  of  the  second  century  in  the  Roman  catacombs 
which  seem  to  be  designed  for  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist  in  small  companies  at  a  common  table,  and 
there  is  one  important  fresco  at  least  which  supports 
this  testimony.^  It  would  not  be  strange  if  the  primi- 
tive fashion  of  celebrating  the  Eucharist  long  survived 
in  the  family  groups  which  assembled  in  their  sepulchral 
chambers  to  hold  service  in  memorial  of  their  dead. 

The  character  of  the  change  we  are  here  considering  is 
best  seen  in  its  effects  upon  the  order  or  ritual  of  worship, 
and  through  this  its  consequences  for  Church  organization 
will  become  clear .^  The  Christian  service  of  instruction 
must  have  lost  much  of  its  enthusiastic  character  before 
the  time  came  when  it  was  united  with  the  Eucharist, 
for  the  development  which  preceded  this  change  assumes 
the  gradual  disappearance  of  the  charismatic  ministry. 
Union  with  the  Eucharistic  assembly  must  have  added 
a  new  element  of  formality.  What  had  originally  been 
a  free  assembly  with  little  or  no  superintendence,  re- 
ceived through  this  union  a  formally  constituted  presi- 
dent in  the  person  of  the  bishop.  This  of  itself  must 
have  tended  to  insure  an  orderly  service.  On  the  side 
of  government  its  consequences  were  important,  for 
presidency  in  the  principal  assembly  on  the  Lord's  day 
implied  presidency  in  all  assemblies  of  the  Church  — 
assemblies  for  election  and  ordination,  for  discipline,  and 
for  all  the  emergencies  of  government.     The  position  of 

8  See  particularly  Wilpert,  Fractio  Panis,  passim. 

^  It  is  to  be  noted,  by  the  way,  that  what  was  most  radical  in  this 
change  was  the  separation  of  the  Eucharist  from  the  agape,  not  its  union 
with  the  service  of  instruction  and  worship,  which  must  occasionally  have 
taken  place  from  the  earliest  times,  as,  for  example,  upon  the  occasion  of 
St.  Paul's  visit  to  Troas  (Acts  20  :  6-11).  Both  elements  of  the  change, 
however,  were  about  equally  effective  in  the  gradual  perversion  of  the 
idea  and  use  of  the  sacrament. 


§  19]  THE   EUCHARIST  283 

the  bishop  was  the  more  exalted  because  he  presided 
at  the  head  of  the  body  of  presbyters,  and  was  sepa- 
rated as  it  were  by  this  whole  moral  distance  from 
the  congregation,  while  the  deacons  —  themselves  men 
of  consideration  —  appeared  in  the  assembly  as  his 
ministers. 

In  the  Encharistic  assembly  at  all  events  the  bishop 
was  more  than  a  mere  presiding  officer  :  he  was  the 
chief  litiirge  of  the  congregation.  Who  but  the  bishop 
could  offer  the  prayers  of  the  congregation  to  God  ? 
The  Eucharistic  prayer,  which  it  had  ever  been  his 
function  to  offer,  was  becoming  more  and  more  elabo- 
rate, and  gradually  came  to  be  regarded  not  only  as  the 
principal  prayer  of  the  Church,  but  as  the  most  inclu- 
sive. As  we  find  it  in  the  earliest  liturgies  it  had  be- 
come a  very  long  prayer,  interspersed  with  popular 
psalmody,  and  containing  various  elements  of  petition 
and  commemoration,  besides  the  thanksgiving  for  all  of 
God's  mercies  of  providence  and  of  grace  displayed 
under  the  Old  Dispensation  and  under  the  New. 

But  it  must  be  remembered  too  that  all  prayers 
offered  in  this  assembly  acquired  at  once  a  relation 
to  the  Eucharist,  for  the  whole  service  was  conducted 
at  the  Lord's  table  (the  altar,  as  it  was  afterwards 
called),  and  the  earlier  part  of  the  service  was  re- 
garded as  preparatory  to  the  latter.  We  can  readily 
imagine  how  each  part  reacted  upon  the  other  to  favor 
the  development  of  a  Christian  cultus  in  the  strictest 
sense,  —  a  development  which  was  furthered  by  many 
other  motives  which  are  more  commonly  recognized. 
Yet  even  in  the  liturgies  of  the  fourth  century  and 
later  we  can  plainly  enough  distinguish  the  two  con- 
stituent elements  which  were  so  closely  assimilated  in 
this  service.     The  two  great  divisions  are  marked  by 


284  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

the  dismissal  of  the  catechumens,  who  might  not  re- 
main for  the  Eucharistic  service  proper,  at  which,  as 
formerly  at  the  agape,  only  baptized  persons  were  pres- 
ent, who  were  all  expected  to  communicate.  The  first 
part  consisted  of  several  Scripture  lections,  interspersed 
with  psalms  and  hymns,  and  followed  by  the  sermon ; 
concluding  with  a  long  general  prayer,  which  Justin 
Martyr  mentions  in  a  way  that  suggests  the  deacon's 
bidding  prayer  which  we  find  in  the  earliest  liturgies/" 
In  this  form  of  prayer  the  deacon  announced  to  the 
people  one  subject  of  petition  after  another,  and  the 
direct  prayer  was  made  by  all  in  common,  though  in 
silence.  This  represented  the  popular  participation  in 
prayer  which  had  been  enjoyed  in  the  assembly  for 
instruction.  In  the  second  century  the  bishop  was  or- 
dinarily the  only  one  who  might  offer  a  prayer  directly 
addressed  to  God  in  the  name  of  the  whole  congrega- 
tion, —  assuming  that  no  gifted  teacher  was  present. 

The  form  of  the  Christian  house  of  worship  and  the 
arrangement  of  the  officers  and  congregation  therein 
has  an  important  bearing  both  upon  the  liturgy  and 
upon  Church  government.  We  have  to  suppose  that 
until  about  the  third  century  Church  assemblies  were 
ordinarily  held  in  the  private  houses  of  well-to-do 
disciples.  Ultimately,  such  houses  may  have  been 
appropriated  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  Church,  and 
when  new  or  larger  houses  of  worship  were  required 
they  were  probably  built  upon  a  similar  plan.  This 
whole  development  lies  in  the  dark,  but  it  is  now  the 

10  See  Th.  Harnack,  Gemeindegottesdienst,  1854,  pp.  247  sqq.  In  de- 
scribing the  development  of  the  liturgy  with  sole  reference  to  its  influ- 
ence upon  Church  organization,  it  is  altogether  out  of  the  question  to 
furnish  proof  of  the  positions  I  here  assume  —  even  when  they  may  seem 
novel.  This,  however,  I  hope  to  do  before  long  in  a  work  devoted 
expressly  to  the  subject. 


§  19]  THE   EUCHARIST  285 

general  opinion  that  the  well-known  type  of  Church 
building  which  emerged  in  the  time  of  Constantine 
(the  so-called  basilica)  was  derived  from  the  peristyle 
of  the  better  class  of  Greek  dwelling,  or  —  what  comes 
to  the  same  thing  —  the  peristyle-atrium  of  the  Koman 
house."  It  cannot  be  accounted  strange  if  the  Eucha- 
ristic  ritual,  which  first  adapted  itself  to  the  disposition 
of  the  private  house,  should  tend  to  perpetuate  the  form 
of  building  which  was  inextricably  associated  with  its 
development.  The  nave,  which  was  the  room  of  the 
congregation,  does  not  concern  us  here  :  the  colonnades 
which  divided  it  into  aisles  separated  several  classes  of 
worshippers,  but  marked  no  distinctions  of  rank  ;  and 
the  space  separated  for  the  choir  in  the  middle  probably 
reflects  the  practice  of  a  later  age.  We  are  here  solely 
concerned  with  the  room  that  was  occupied  by  the 
higher  clergy,  ^ — ^  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons.  This 
was  a  relatively  small  extension  of  the  middle  aisle, 
usually  semicircular  in  plan,  raised  a  few  steps  above 
the  floor  of  the  nave,  and  roofed  by  a  half  dome  — 
hence  called  the  apsis.  At  the  back  of  the  apse  was 
the  cathedra  of  the  bishop ;  and  on  either  side  of  this, 
following  the  curve  of  the  wall,  a  bench  for  the  presby- 
ters. In  front  of  them  (that  is,  between  the  clergy  and 
the  congregation)  was  the  Holy  Table.  About  this  the 
deacons  stood,  as  the  original  character  of  their  office 
required. 

^^  For  the  origin  of  the  basilica  see  my  Monuments  of  the  Early  Church, 
pp.  91-105.  Hauck's  art.  Kirchenbau  in  Herzog's  Realencyklopddie,  3rd 
ed.  Bd.  X.  p.  774,  is  the  most  recent  treatment  of  this  subject,  and  it 
suggests  several  modifications  of  the  view  presented  in  my  book.  For 
the  adaptation  of  the  basilica  to  the  requirements  of  the  cultus,  see  my 
book  above  mentioned,  pp.  117,  123  sq.  On  the  adaptation  of  round  and 
cross-shaped  buildings  to  the  Eucharist  see  ibid.  pp.  150  sq.,  154  sq.  ;  for 
the  altar,  pp.  159  sqq. ;  for  the  cathedra,  pp.  172  sqq. 


286  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

The  centre  of  this  whole  system  is  the  Holy  Table. 
Without  it  the  arrangement  would  be  accidental  and 
inorganic.  In  this  the  ritual  found  its  centre,  and  even 
the  architectural  lines  of  the  building  were  ordered  with 
predominant  reference  to  it.  This  arrangement  which 
we  find  in  the  earliest  basilicas  of  the  fourth  century, 
we  have  good  reason  to  refer,  in  its  essential  features, 
to  the  early  age  in  which  the  Eucharist  was  first  sepa- 
rated from  the  agape.  And  even  this  critical  period  of 
transition  effected  no  essential  change.  The  Eucharist 
had  ceased  to  be  a  veritable  meal.  But  the  Table  was 
not  discarded.  Only  —  the  congregation  had  outgrown 
it.  The  assembly  grew  to  a  multitude,  while  the  Table 
retained  its  original  modest  proportions,  or  even  became 
smaller  as  the  development  prompted.  It  is  manifest 
that  all  could  no  longer  sit  at  the  table  :  but  some 
might,  and  indeed  must.  Who  should  this  be  but  the 
bishop,  as  president,  and  the  elders  who  had  always 
enjoyed  the  seats  of  honor  on  either  side  of  him  ?  The 
deacons  stood  as  usual  about  the  Table  in  the  atti- 
tude of  service,  but  the  people  approached  it  only  to 
communicate. 

This  is  substantially  the  situation  which  is  reflected 
in  the  arrangement  of  the  basilicas  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  presbyters  had 
in  the  meantime  become  the  ordinary  presidents  of  the 
Eucharist.  The  traditional  position  of  the  bishop's  seat 
behind  the  altar  remained  unchanged  until  late  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  and  the  whole  development  of  Church 
architecture  until  the  most  modern  times  has  been 
dominated  by  the  conception  that  the  congregation  and 
clergy  are  assembled  together  at  the  Lord's  Table.  The 
Protestant  sects  that  have  dethroned  the  Eucharist  from 
its  high  and  central  place  in  Christian  worship  naturally 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  287 

find  the  traditional  form  of  church  unsuitable,  and  there 
remains  nothing  but  custom  to  restrain  them  from  erect- 
ing buildings  which  are  more  expressly  adapted  for  use  as 
a  meeting-house  or  auditorium.  Such  buildings  we  should 
undoubtedly  have  had  in  the  early  age,  if  tlie  Eucharist 
had  not  been  united  with  the  assembly  for  instruction  : 
—  instead  of  the  baptistery  and  the  basilica,  we  should 
have  had  every  where  a  baptistery,  an  auditorium,  and  a 
triclinium. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  what  important  conse- 
quences for  the  development  of  architecture  and  of  the 
liturgy  lay  implicit  in  the  union  of  the  Eucharist  with 
the  assembly  for  instruction,  which  I  assume  to  have 
occurred  about  the  beginning  of  the  second  century. 
It  is  now  possible  to  appreciate  the  influence  of  this 
factor  upon  the  development  of  Church  government. 
Although  after  this  change  the  clergy  retained  the  same 
position  as  of  old  with  relation  to  the  Holy  Table,  their 
relation  to  the  people  was  seriously  altered.  It  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  the  separation  which  was  here 
involved  between  the  congregation  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons  on  the  other,  was  a 
potent  factor  in  developing  the  idea  of  the  clerus  as  a 
separate  class  in  the  community.  It  must  at  once  have 
accentuated  the  notion  of  rank :  while  the  official  status 
of  bishops  and  deacons  was  made  more  distinct  and  more 
secure,  the  vaguer  rank  of  the  presbyters  could  not  fail 
to  develop  into  a  formal  office. 

We  must  take  also  into  account  the  gradual  develop- 
ment which  resulted  from  the  association  of  the  sacri- 
ficial idea  with  the  Eucharist,  and  the  treatment  of  it  as 
an  awe-inspiring  mystery  which  must  be  hedged  about 
with  all  possible  pomp  and  ceremony.  Through  this 
association  the   clergy  themselves  were  soon  invested 


288  THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

with  an  official  sanctity,  and  the  idea  of  priesthood, 
which  formerly  was  applied  to  the  Christian  teacher  as 
such,  particularly  the  prophet,  was  in  the  Catholic  devel- 
opment appropriated  exclusively  to  the  ministers  of  the 
cultus.  Though  the  word  priest  was  used  metaphor- 
ically at  first,  it  was  ultimately  taken  in  its  literal 
significance,  denoting  a  sacrificing  minister. 

The  Eucharist,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  originally 
implied  a  sacrifice,  for  it  was  a  sacrificial  oneal.  But 
the  victim  was  supposed  to  be  already  offered,  and  it 
was  here  brought  —  not  to  be  again  offered,  but  —  to 
be  eaten.  An  early  and  innocent  notion  represented 
all  gifts  brought  by  the  people  at  the  Eucharist  as  an 
offering  to  God.  The  whole  wealth  of  Hebrew  sacri- 
ficial symbolism  was  employed  for  the  expression  of  this 
idea,  and  though  the  notion  was  essentially  a  metaphor- 
ical one,  the  language  in  which  it  was  couched  may 
easily  be  interpreted  in  the  sense  of  the  later  Catholic 
doctrine.  The  use  of  such  language  as  this,  the  common 
employment  of  the  terms  priest,  altar,  and  sacrifice,  must 
have  led  men  gradually  to  seek  a  more  real  connotation  ; 
but  it  is  not  till  the  third  century  (in  Cyprian's  writings) 
that  we  find  express  reference  to  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  as  constituting  the  sacrifice  which  was  offered  in 
the  Eucharist.  With  this,  the  sacrificial  doctrine  and 
the  sacrificial  ministry  were  practically  complete.  But 
all  this  represents  a  later  development  than  that  which 
immediately  engages  us.  The  sacrificial  idea  was  a 
potent  factor  in  defining  the  character  of  the  ministry, 
but  it  came  too  late  to  have  much  influence  upon  the 
form  of  organization. 

The  line  of  thought  which  is  here  traced,  gradually 
developed  a  new  estimation  of  the  clergy,  but  a  higher 
estimation  than  that  which  they  already  enjoyed  at  the 


§19]  THE  EUCHARIST  289 

beginning  of  the  second  century  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
imagine.  By  that  time  the  charismatic  ministry  had 
become  almost  a  negligible  factor,  and  the  bishops  who 
presided  in  the  place  of  the  gifted  teachers  (apostles, 
evangelists,  prophets,  etc.)  inherited  much  of  the  esti- 
mation in  which  they  had  been  held,  —  that  is,  as  we 
have  learned  in  the  last  chapter,  the  exalted  honor  and 
authority  which  belongs  to  the  direct  representatives  of 
God  or  Christ.  From  another  point  of  view,  the  loftiest 
claim  the  bishop  could  make  for  his  office  was  supported 
by  the  ideal  consideration  that  as  president  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, he  acted  in  Christ's  place  and  sat  in  his  seat.  This 
idea  could  have  little  tendency  to  enhance  the  official 
power  of  the  bishop  so  long  as  the  dignity  of  presiding 
at  the  Eucharist  was  simply  allotted  to  the  person  of 
most  consequence  that  happened  to  be  present  in  the 
assembly ;  but  it  could  not  fail  to  contribute  greatly  to 
the  episcopal  authority  so  soon  as  the  bishop's  office  be- 
came more  distinctly  defined  and  his  rights  over  the 
Eucharist  became  more  exclusive. 

An  immediate  and  decided  advance  in  this  direction 
must  have  been  made  when  the  people  were  separated 
from  the  Holy  Table  and  the  bishop  and  elders  alone  sat 
there.  This  situation  occasioned,  as  I  have  said,  a  more 
definite  notion  of  the  rank  of  presbyter,  and  led  ulti- 
mately to  the  election  or  appointment  of  presbyters  as  to 
an  office.  Naturally,  too,  the  presbyters  profited  by  the 
symbolic  notion  which  proved  so  advantageous  to  the 
bishop :  if  the  bishop  presided  at  the  Table  in  Christ's 
stead,  the  presbyters,  who  now  alone  sat  with  him, 
evidently  represented  the  Twelve  Apostles.  There  was 
here  no  thought  of  a  succession  either  from  the  Apostles 
or  from  Christ :  it  was  merely  the  situation  of  the  mo- 
ment which  reproduced  the  sacramental  meal  as  the 

19 


290  THE   EUCHARISTTC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

Lord  had  observed  it  with  the  Twelve  in  the  upper- 
room  at  Jerusalem.  This  symbolical  consideration 
probably  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  Alexandrian 
presbyters  were  limited  to  twelve,  just  as  the  deacons 
at  Rome  were  limited  to  seven  in  consideration  of  the 
Seven  who  were  appointed  in  the  early  days  at  Jerusa- 
lem. According  to  a  similar  symbolism  which  prevailed 
in  the  remoter  parts  of  Egypt  at  least  as  early  as  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  the  presbyters  were  likened 
to  the  four  and  twenty  elders  of  the  Apocalypse  who 
appear  on  either  side  of  the  throne  of  God. 

It  is  chiefly,  however,  in  the  language  of  St.  Ignatius 
that  we  find  proof  of  the  general  currency  of  these 
ideas,  and  of  the  fact  that  they  transgressed  the  proper 
limits  of  symbolism  and  were  applied  with  almost  lit- 
eral force.  St.  Ignatius'  claims  for  the  episcopate  reach 
a  pitch  of  extravagance  which  must  appear  positively 
blasphemous  except  as  they  are  explained  by  the  tradi- 
tion which  we  have  been  considering.  "  Wheresoever 
the  bishop  shall  appear,  there  let  the  people  be ;  even 
as  wherever  Jesus  Christ  is  there  is  the  catholic  Church  " 
[Srai/rn.  c.  8).  "  For  when  ye  are  obedient  to  tliQ  bishop 
as  to  Jesus  Christ  ...  be  ye  obedient  also  to  the  presby- 
tery as  to  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope  "  {Trail. 
c.  2).  "  Plainly  therefore  we  ought  to  regard  the  bishop 
as  the  Lord  himself"  [EjjJies.  c.  6).  Ignatius,  it  is  true, 
deals  somewhat  freely  with  this  figure,  and  frequently 
speaks  of  the  bishop  rather  as  the  "  type  of  the  Father."  ^^ 

12  "  In  like  manner  let  all  men  respect  the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ, 
even  as  they  should  respect  the  bishop  as  being  the  type  of  the  Father 
and  the  presbyters  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God  and  as  the  band  of  the 
Ajjostles  "  {Trail,  c.  3).  The  deacons  are  here  regarded  as  serving  the 
bishop  as  the  Son  serves  the  Father  — "  the  bishop  presiding  after 
the  likeness  of  God  and  the  presbyters  after  the  likeness  of  the  council 
of  the  Apostles,  with  the  deacons  also  who  are  most  dear  to  me,  having 


§19]  THE   EUCHARIST  291 

But  at  all  events  the  presbytery  is  invariably  compared 
with  the  Apostles,  and  all  three  orders  —  the  bishop,  the 
presbytery,  and  the  deacons  —  are  commonly  associated 
together  in  a  way  which  plainly  reflects  the  concrete  re- 
lations towards  one  another  which  were  defined  by  the 
places  they  occupied  at  the  Eucharistic  table.  When 
Ignatius  says  "  with  your  revered  bishop,  and  with  the 
fitly  wreathed  spiritual  croivn  of  your  presbytery,  and 
with  the  deacons  who  walk  after  God"  (Magn.  c.  13), 
he  seems  to  have  before  his  mind's  eye  the  half-circle 
of  presbyters  seated  around  the  throne  of  the  bishop, 
according  to  the  arrangement  which  appears  first  in 
the  basilicas,  but  which  may  well  date  back  to  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century.  This  half-circular 
arrangement  of  the  presbyters'  seats  may  perhaps  ex- 
plain also  the  strange  figure  of  speech  which  Ignatius 
employs  in  Ephes.  c.  4,  where  he  says  that  the  pres- 
bytery is  "  attuned  to  the  bishop  as  the  strings  to  a 
lyre." 

The  broad  currency  and  enduring  influence  of  this 
range  of  ideas,  this  heavenly  comparison  which  sheds 
so  much  lustre  upon  the  Catholic  ministry,  is  proved 
by  the  popularity  of  a  theme  of  Christian  art  which 
first  manifests  itself  in  the  decoration  of  the  basilicas  of 
the  fourth  century,  and  probably  does  not  antedate  that 
age.  I  refer  to  the  subject  which  was  usually  employed 
for  the  apsidal  decoration  of  the  churches.  The  earliest 
and  noblest  example  preserved  to  us  is  the  mosaic  in 
Sta.  Pudenziana  at  Rome,  belonging  to  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century.  But  besides  the  records  or  remains  of 
many  other  mosaics,  we  find  the  same  theme  reproduced 

been  intrusted  with  the  diaconate  of  Jesus  Christ  {i.  e.  of  which  he  was 
the  type),  who  was  with  the  Father  before  the  worlds  and  appeared  at 
the  end  of  time  "  (Magn.  c.  6).     Cf.  Smyrn.  c.  8. 


292  THE  EUCHARISTIC  ASSEMBLY  [IV 

in  the  frescoes  of  the  catacombs  and  upon  the  sarcophagi, 
and  finally  upon  metal  and  ivory  objects  of  every  sort 
on  which  pictorial  art  was  employed.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  this  theme  was  originally  developed  for  the 
decoration  of  the  apse  of  the  basilica,  and  here  it  is 
that  its  appropriateness  is  most  manifest.  The  general 
theme,  occupying  both  the  apse  and  the  apsidal  arch,  is  a 
representation  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  depicted  chiefly 
in  terms  taken  from  the  Apocalypse.  I  need  not  de- 
scribe here  the  many  symbolical  motives  which  entered 
into  this  composition,  nor  even  note  the  principal  varia- 
tions of  the  theme.^^  All  that  is  strictly  in  point  for 
our  present  purpose  is  the  central  subject  in  the  form 
in  which  it  was  usually  represented.  In  the  center  of 
the  apse  Christ  is  represented,  enthroned  in  the  midst  of 
the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  and  stretching  out  his  hand 
with  the  gesture  of  address  as  the  Teacher  of  the  world. 
On  either  side  of  him  are  ranged  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
seated  upon  a  bench  precisely  like  that  occupied  by  the 
presbyters.  Above,  it  may  be  noted,  upon  the  apsidal 
arch,  the  four  and  twenty  elders  are  depicted.  In 
the  mosaic  of  Sta.  Pudenziana,  Mt.  Calvary  looms  in  the 
background,  surmounted  by  the  cross,  and  above  it  the 
Paternal  hand  holds  out  the  crown  of  eternal  recom- 
pense. From  below  the  throne,  the  Spirit,  under  the 
symbol  of  a  dove,  rains  influence  upon  the  Church. 
When  we  reflect  that  immediately  below  this  the  bishop 
was  seated  upon  the  cathedra  surrounded  by  his  presby- 
tery, and  add  that  he  too  was  accustomed  to  address  the 
Church  from  his  seat,  it  is  impossible  to  ignore  the 
analogy  between  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly  assembly, 
or  to  doubt  that  the  earthly  ministry  was  regarded  as 

1^  For  this  I  may  refer  to  my  Monuments  of  the  Early  Church,  pp. 
o02  sqq. 


§19]  THE   EUCHARIST  293 

the  counterpart  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  We  have 
only  to  wonder  that  this  idea  persisted  so  long  in  spite 
of  new  notions  of  the  ministry  (the  apostolical  succes- 
sion of  the  bishops)  which  ran  athwart  the  earlier  con- 
ceptions. But  this  is  only  one  out  of  many  illustrations 
of  the  fact  that  popular  ideals  do  not  always  correspond 
with  polemical  and  theological  dogmas.  We  may  note 
in  passing  from  this  theme,  that  the  Lord's  Day  assem- 
bly in  heaven,  which  St.  John  had  depicted  as  a  subli- 
mated transcript  of  the  familiar  service  of  the  Church, 
had  now  in  turn  come  to  be  regarded  as  the  heavenly 
pattern  of  earthly  worship. 

Returning  to  Ignatius  and  his  age,  it  must  appear 
more  clearly  than  ever  that  the  heavenly  analogy  to 
which  he  resorts  to  magnify  the  importance  of  the 
bishop  and  the  presbytery  was  implied  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  Eucharistic  assembly  and  was  conse- 
quently no  mere  invention  of  his  own.  It  is  certain 
that  he  exploits  this  capital  to  the  utmost,  just  as  he 
does  the  symbol  of  unity  which  was  expressed  by  the 
organization  of  the  principal  assembly.  That  this 
organization,  too,  was  already  established  in  most  of 
the  Churches  with  which  Ignatius  was  acquainted,  and 
was  not  brought  about  as  a  result  of  his  propaganda, 
it  would  be  preposterous  to  doubt.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  he  makes  no  propaganda  for  the  establishment  of 
the  single  episcopate  :  it  is  certain  that  it  was  already 
established  in  all  the  Churches  to  which  he  writes,  with 
the  possible  exception  of  the  Church  at  Rome  —  and  in 
his  letter  to  this  Church  he  makes  no  reference  to  the 
subject  whatsoever.  It  is  a  monstrously  unhistorical 
assumption  that  in  the  age  of  Ignatius  "  the  presbyters, 
whose  position  and  power  in  the  community  had  hith- 
erto  seemed   supreme,    were   relegated   to   the    second 


294  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

rank."  ^^  Starting  with  the  assumption  of  the  original 
identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  the  development  of 
the  single  episcopate  is  left  an  insoluble  mystery ;  for, 
leaving  all  facts  aside,  and  giving  the  freest  rein  to  the 
imagination,  it  is  impossible  to  propose  any  plausible 
process  whereby,  in  the  short  space  of  time  allowed  for 
the  revolution,  one  of  the  bishops  could  have  been  ele- 
vated to  a  position  relative  to  the  rest  like  that  of  Christ 
above  his  Apostles. 

We  have  seen,  however,  that  the  single  bishop  and 
the  whole  organization  of  which  he  was  the  head  is  ex- 
plained by  the  nature  of  the  Eucharistic  assembly. 
This  organization  was  gradually  coming  to  clearer 
expression  and  acquiring  more  definite  authority.  It 
was  already  formally  defined  in  all  the  principal  assem- 
blies, of  which  there  was  at  least  one  in  every  town,  and 
in  the  smaller  towns  probably  no  more  than  one.  So 
far  as  the  form  is  concerned,  nothing  could  be  added  to 
this  organization ;  but  its  authority  needed  to  be 
strengthened,  and  it  still  remained  for  it  to  affirm  its 
right  as  the  exclusive  organization  of  the  local  commu- 
nity, as  the  exclusive  authority  over  the  Eucharist. 

This  is  the  point  of  Ignatius'  plea,  the  express  object 
of  his  whole  propaganda.  For  Ignatius,  the  single 
bishop  is  the  correlative  of  a  single  Eucharistic  assem- 
bly, and  he  avails  himself  of  the  unity  of  organization 
which  actually  existed  to  press  the  plea  for  unity  of 
worship.  This  is  his  great  remedy  for  schism.  He 
urges  this  point  in  all  his  epistles  —  except  in  that  to 
the  Romans.  In  Ephes.  c.  20  he  says :  "  Assemble 
yourselves  together  in  common,  ...  to  the  end  that 

^*  This  has  been  the  common  assumption :  the  phrase  in  the  text  I 
take  from  one  of  the  latest  works  on  the  subject,  Allen,  Christian  Institu- 
tions, 1897,  p.  62. 


§  19]  THE   EUCHARIST  295 

ye  may  obey  the  bishop  and  the  presbytery  without 
distraction  of  mind ;  breaking  one  bread,"  etc.  Ih.  c.  5  : 
"  If  any  one  be  not  within  the  precinct  of  the  altar,  he 
lacketh  the  bread  of  God.  For  if  the  prayer  of  one 
and  another  hath  so  great  force,  how  much  more  that  of 
the  bishop  and  of  the  whole  Church."  ^^  Trail,  c.  3  : 
"  Without  these  \i.  e.  the  bishop,  the  presbytery,  and 
the  deacons]  there  is  not  even  the  name  of  a  Church." 
Phil.  c.  4  :  "  Be  ye  careful  therefore  to  observe  one  Eu- 
charist (for  there  is  one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
and  one  cup  unto  union  in  his  blood  ;  there  is  one  altar, 
as  there  is  one  bishop,  together  with  the  presbytery  and 
the  deacons  my  fellow  servants),  that  whatsoever  ye  do, 
ye  may  do  it  after  God."  Smyrn.  c.  8  :  "  Shun  divisions  as 
the  beginning  of  evils.  Do  ye  all  follow  your  bishop, 
as  Jesus  Christ  followed  the  Father,  and  the  presbytery 
as  the  Apostles ;  and  to  the  deacons  pay  respect  as  to 
God's  commandment.  Let  no  man  do  aught  of  things 
pertaining  to  the  Church  apart  from  the  bishop.  Let 
that  be  held  a  valid  Eucharist  which  is  under  the  bishop 
or  one  to  whom  he  shall  have  committed  it.  Whereso- 
ever the  bishop  shall  appear,  there  let  the  people  be; 
even  as  wherever  Jesus  is,  there  is  the  catholic  Church. 
It  is  not  lawful  apart  from  the  bishop  either  to  baptize 
or  to  hold  an  agape." 

Ignatius  starts  with  the  single  episcopate  as  an  ac- 
complished fact  —  or  rather  with  the  episcopal  organi- 
zation as  a  whole,  including  the  presbytery  and  the 
deacons.  He  does  not  exalt  the  bishop  at  the  expense 
of  the  presbytery,  but  he  strives  to  raise  the  whole 
organization  to  a  higher  power.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  single  episcopate  was   already  so  well  established 

15  For  strong  exhortations  to  community  in  worship,  see  Magn.  cc.  4, 
6,  7,  — cf.  Trail,  c.  7. 


296  THE   EUCHARISTTC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

in  Asia  Minor  that  no  danger  was  apprehended  of 
seeing  a  second  bishop  set  up.  But  if  instead  of  a 
bishop,  Ignatius  had  found  the  presbytery  in  the  posi- 
tion of  supreme  authority,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  he  would  not  have  been  satisfied  with  that.  The 
presbytery  would  have  been  at  least  equally  safe  as 
a  center  of  unity,  though  it  might  not  prove  so  efficient 
as  an  executive ;  and  a  majority  vote  of  the  presbyters 
would  have  answered  equally  well  the  prime  purpose 
Ignatius  had  in  view  of  legally  excluding  sectarian 
manifestations  of  Christianity.  But  Ignatius  took  the 
organization  as  he  found  it  — ■  the  organization  of  the 
Eucharistic  assembly,  which  had  already  become  the  one 
principal  assembly  of  the  Church  —  and  the  gist  of 
his  ]3i'etension  is,  that  the  president  of  the  principal 
assembly  is  ipso  facto  the  president  of  every  assembly 
of  the  Church.  Without  the  bishop's  leave  it  is  not 
lawful  to  baptize,  nor  to  hold  an  agape,  or  any  assembly 
whatever  which  deserves  the  name  of  a  Church.  Above 
all,  there  must  be  no  Eucharistic  assembly  without  the 
presence  of  the  bishop  or  his  delegate.  For  if  heretics 
could  celebrate  the  Eucharist,  who  could  deny  them 
the  name  of  a  Church  ?  Ignatius  made  a  momentous 
addition  to  Christ's  definition  of  the  Church.  Christ 
said  that  wherever  two  or  three  are  gathered  together 
in  his  name,  he  will  be  in  the  midst  of  them  —  and 
that  constitutes  the  Church.  Ignatius  adds :  when 
they  have  the  legal  organization  of  bishop,  presbytery, 
and  deacons.     This  is  a  grave  addition  indeed. 

The  point  which  Ignatius  urged  was  a  difficult  one 
to  carry  through.  It  had  against  it  not  only  the 
evangelical  definition  of  the  Church,  but  the  force  of 
ecclesiastical  tradition.  In  part,  his  purpose  was  never 
achieved;  and  for  the  rest,   it  was  achieved  by  means 


§19]  THE  EUCHARIST  297 

which  he  never  dreamt  of.  No  sooner  was  the  smgle 
Eucharist  recognized  as  an  ideal  to  be  striven  after, 
than  the  numerical  growth  of  the  Church  rendered  its 
accomplishment  forever  impossible.  The  single  episco- 
pate subsequently  triumphed  in  all  parts  of  the  Church ; 
but  in  the  main  it  was  not  strictly  the  Ignatian  episco- 
pate, it  no  longer  represented  the  presidency  over  a 
single  Eucharist,  the  single  principal  assembly  of  the 
whole  town,  but  a  presidency  by  delegation  over  many 
equal  assemblies.  A  corollary  of  the  Catholic  episcopate 
as  it  was  finally  established,  and  an  indispensable  con- 
dition of  its  triumph,  was  the  admission  of  the  presby- 
ters to  a  function  which  had  hitherto  constituted  the 
chief  characteristic  of  the  bishop's  office,  making  the 
presbyters  the  ordinary  presidents  of  the  Eucharist.  It 
is  this  revolution  —  if  anything  in  the  gradual  develop- 
ment of  Church  organization  may  be  called  revolutionary 
—  which  gave  the  presbyters  the  distinctive  position 
they  have  ever  since  enjoyed,  and  necessitated  the  in- 
vention of  new  theories,  unknown  to  Ignatius,  to  explain 
and  justify  the  singularity  of  the  episcopal  office.  This 
change  was  accomplished  in  an  age  about  which  we 
have  only  the  scantiest  historical  information,  and  the 
finality  of  the  new  order  is  so  impressive  as  it  emerges 
into  the  clear  light  of  history  that  it  has  ever  since  ob- 
scured our  insight  into  the  earlier  development.  Into 
this  dark  problem  I  propose  now  to  enter,  giving  in 
brief  terms  a  theory  of  the  development  which  seems  to 
accord  with  the  few  facts  we  know  about  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Church  in  that  critical  period,  and  which 
serves  in  part  to  bridge  over  the  gap  which  we  recognize 
between  the  primitive  episcopal  organization  and  the 
Catholic  episcopate  of  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
But  first  we  must  turn  back  ao-ain  to  consider  more 


298  THE  EUCHARISTIC  ASSEMBLY  [IV 

in  detail  the  character  of  the  episcopate  at  the  very 
beginning  of  the  second  century,  and  note  more  exactly 
the  problem  to  which  the  appeal  of  Ignatius  was  im- 
mediately addressed.  I  have  not  yet  sufficiently  dis- 
cussed the  origin  of  the  single  episcopate  as  it  is  revealed 
in  the  Ignatian  epistles.  I  confess  that  in  regard  to 
this  matter  we  are  left  largely  to  conjecture.  I  sup- 
pose that  in  very  many  towns  there  was  never  more 
than  one  bishop,  because  the  community  did  not  out- 
grow the  limitations  of  a  single  Eucharistic  agape  until 
it  was  able  to  take  advantage  of  the  custom  of  holding 
an  enlarged  Eucharistic  assembly  without  the  agape,  and 
so  to  preserve  continuously  the  unity  of  organization 
and  worship.  In  other  cases  where  there  was  originally 
a  plurality  of  bishops — ^this  may  have  characterized 
the  majority  of  cases,  or  it  may  have  been  the  invariable 
case,  at  any  rate  in  all  such  cases  —  I  rely  upon  the 
centralizing  influence  of  the  principal  assembly  on  which 
I  have  all  along  laid  so  much  stress.  I  do  not  pretend 
that  this  was  a  definite  institution,  or  had  any  such 
definite  name  as  I  have  given  it ;  but  something  of 
the  sort  there  must  every  where  have  been,  as  a  con- 
crete expression  of  the  sense  of  local  unity  of  which 
we  have  so  many  proofs.  How  significant  is  the  mere 
fact  that  from  first  to  last  we  never  find  such  a  phrase 
as  "the  Churches  of  Corinth,"  for  example,  but  only 
"'  the  Church  at  Corinth  "  — in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there 
were  ordinarily  several  assemblies.  This  fact  appears 
more  striking  when  we  reflect  that  we  are  nowadays 
more  likely  to  think  and  speak  of  the  Episcopal  Churches 
in  New  York,  let  us  say,  than  of  the  Church  in  its 
totality  as  represented  in  the  episcopal  organization. 

Under  the  influence  of  this  centralizing  motive,  and 
with  this  concrete  center  of  worship  provided,  we  can 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  299 

readily  imagine  that  the  several  bishops  might  be  gradu- 
ally eliminated  in  favor  of  one,  after  the  enlarged  Eu- 
charistic  assembly  had  made  unity  in  worship  possible. 
Such  change  was  possible  because  the  bishops  were  not 
yet  accounted  legally  constituted  officers.  It  must  be  re- 
membered, too,  that  there  was  no  prejudice  in  the  early 
Church  against  the  principle  of  government  by  a  single 
officer;  nor  was  it  necessary  to  overcome  any  prejudice 
in  favor  of  democratic  principles,  or  republican  ;  —  there 
was  no  notion  entertained  of  any  principles  of  legal  gov- 
ernment whatsoever,  but  only  of  a  charismatic  gov- 
ernment (God's  government),  which  was  indeed  more 
consonant  with  the  monarchical  form  than  with  any 
other. 

Taking  the  single  episcopate  as  we  find  it  in  the 
epistles  of  Ignatius,  without  probing  longer  into  the 
causes  and  processes  of  its  origin,  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  chief  point  of  Ignatius'  propaganda  was  either 
easy  of  execution  or  logically  justified  by  the  preceding 
development.  Even  where  the  single  bishop  was  de 
facto  the  sole  local  authority  over  the  Eucharist,  he 
was  not  regarded  as  possessing  such  authority  de  jure. 
The  high  comparison  that  is  employed  to  exalt  the  dig- 
nity of  the  bishop  and  the  presbytery  does  not  go  one 
step  toward  justifying  an  exclusive  authority  over  the 
Eucharist.  For  however  eminent  the  bishop  might  be 
within  his  own  assembly,  he  possessed  no  authority  in 
any  other  assembly  —  still  less  the  authority  to  prohibit 
another  assembly.  Every  other  assembly  was  equally 
a  manifestation  of  the  Ecclesia.  The  tradition  sanc- 
tioned other  Eucharistic  assemblies  apart  from  the  prin- 
cipal one,  and  there  was  probably  never  a  time  when 
a  practical  reason  —  not  to  say  necessity  —  for  holding 
such  was  altogether  lacking.     Though  only  a  few  might 


300  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

meet  in  such  an  assembly,  it  none  the  less  constituted 
an  Ecclesia,  and  he  who  presided  could  not  but  be 
regarded,  like  the  bishop,  as  the  representative  of 
Christ. 

Nevertheless,  I  think  we  may  probably  presume  that 
in  such  Churches  as  we  are  here  considering  Ignatius' 
point  was  soon  carried  —  not  so  much  by  the  force  of 
•his  arguments,^^  or  even  by  the  warmth  of  his  appeal, 
as  by  reason  of  the  practical  dangers  his  admonition 
was  intended  to  meet.  The  Gnostic  sects  of  that  age 
seem  not  to  have  been  in  a  position  to  set  up  an  opposi- 
tion organization  of  any  strength,  or  to  win  over  at  one 
time  any  considerable  community.  The  Church  suffered 
loss  principally  through  leakage,  —  minor  assemblies  of 
small  size  were  liable  to  capture.  Hence  such  occasions 
of  danger  must  be  eliminated  —  and  doubtless  they 
were. 

But  if  the  purity  of  the  faith  was  thereby  maintained, 
it  was  at  a  great  cost  —  the  cost  of  subjecting  the  Church 
to  a  legal  organization.  The  ideal  Ignatius  had  in  view 
was  a  definite  congregational  system.  The  congrega- 
tional idea  had  grown  up  gradually  in  connection  with 
the  principal  assembly ;  but  during  the  whole  of  the 
first  century,  as  Sohm  remarks,  we  find  only  the  pre- 

^*  We  must  be  on  our  guard  not  to  import  into  tlie  sphere  of  ideas 
■which  deterinined  the  early  conceptions  of  Church  government  the  post- 
Augustinian  doctrine  of  the  grace  of  orders  which  has  been  so  important 
a  factor  in  all  modern  controversies  about  the  character  and  authority 
of  the  ministry.  Ignatius  had  no  notion  of  a  clerical  "character"  im- 
pressed upon  the  bishop  (or  presbyter)  in  virtue  of  which  he  had  the 
porver  to  do  what  no  other  could  do.  Neither  had  he  any  notion  of  a 
definite  change  in  the  Eucharistic  elements  such  as  would  require  a  par- 
ticular sort  of  priestly  endowment.  He  looks  at  the  question  purely  from 
the  legal  point  of  view.  Hence  he  recognizes  that  any  one  may  be  dele- 
gated by  the  bishop  to  preside  at  the  Eucharist.  That  only  is  a  valid 
Eucharist  which  is  presided  over  b}'  the  bishop  or  his  delegate,  because 
that  alone  is  "  according  to  the  commandment." 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  301 

liminary  stages  of  congregational  construction,  not 
Congregationalism  itself.  So  long  as  other  assemblies 
were  freely  allowed,  and  the  principal  assembly  did  not 
claim  to  be  the  only  assembly  deserving  the  name  of  a 
Church;  the  Ecclesia  might  be  hampered  by  law,  but 
was  not  yet  bound  by  it,  and  even  the  recognition  of  a 
legal  right  on  the  part  of  the  bishop  in  his  own  assem- 
bly did  not  have  the  effect  of  legalizing  Christendom. 
This  end  was  definitely  accomplished  when  the  Ignatian 
thesis  was  accepted.  This  was  very  far  from  effecting 
the  legal  organization  of  the  whole  empirical  multitude 
of  Christians  throughout  the  world,  for  the  Ignatian 
system  was  essentially  congregational  independency, 
thouQ-h  in  the  cases  with  which  he  was  most  familiar 
the  congregation  was  conterminous  with  the  local  com- 
munity. It  was  more  than  a  century  before  a  broader 
organization  was  achieved.  But  none  the  less,  the  im- 
mediate effect  of  the  Ignatian  thesis  was  to  legalize  the 
whole  Church,  for  it  spread  a  mesh  from  which  no 
assembly  could  escape. 

It  is  now  time  to  observe  that  the  Ignatian  scheme 
was  expressly  formulated  for  such  communities  as  al- 
ready had  a  single  bishop  and  a  single  principal  assem- 
bly, and  was  not  at  all  adapted  to  bring  about  a  similar 
consummation  in  cities  where  several  bishops  existed 
and  where  the  Church  had  perhaps  outgrown  the  possi- 
bility of  a  single  assembly.  Several  bishops  implied,  as 
I  suppose,  as  many  principal  assemblies  — ■  if  we  may  so 
call  them  —  each  with  its  appropriate  organization  of 
presbytery  and  deacons.  Ignatius'  idea  of  the  Church 
assembly  was  still  too  much  like  the  primitive  one  to 
afford  any  argument  against  this  system,  or  to  suggest 
any  higher  principle  of  unity  under  which  these  several 
organizations  could  be  combined.     Ignatius  would  not 


302  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

accept  the  primitive  maxim,  that  wherever  the  disciples 
are  assembled,  there  is  the  Church,  a  complete  mani- 
festation of  Christendom  :  yet  he  was  the  ardent  cham- 
pion of  the  principle,  that  wherever  there  is  an  assembly 
with  the  proper  organization  of  bishop,  presbytery,  and 
deacons,  there  is  the  wliole  Church.  For  what  can  be 
more  whole  and  entire  than  an  assembly  in  which  Christ 
himself  is  represented  by  the  bishop,  and  the  company 
of  the  Apostles  by  the  presbytery  ?  If,  as  I  presume, 
there  was  a  plurality  of  bishops  at  Rome  at  the  time  of 
his  writing,  Ignatius  could  have  had  no  ground  of  com- 
plaint against  it  — •  and,  in  fact,  his  letter  breathes  not 
the  slightest  reproach  on  this  score  against  a  Church 
which  he  adulates  above  all  others. 

Ritschl  believed  that  a  peculiar  conception  of  the 
episcopate  was  indicated  by  the  organization  of  the 
Churches  of  Jerusalem  and  Alexandria. ^^  The  presi- 
dency of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  was  accorded  to 
James  as  the  Lord's  brother;  and  Symeon,  who  suc- 
ceeded him  in  this  dignity,  was  likewise  a  blood-relation 
of  the  Lord.^^  St.  James,  therefore,  who  presided  among 
the  Apostles,  was  not  accounted  a  successor  of  the  Apos- 
tles, as  according  to  the  Catholic  theory  of  the  episco- 
pate (which  Ritschl  identifies  with  that  of  Ignatius), 
but  as  the  successor  of  the  Lord.  The  same  notion  is 
reflected  in  the  subsequent  choice  of  Symeon,  the  cousin 
of  the  Lord ;  and,  as  Ritschl  thinks,  in  the  organization 
of  the  Alexandrian  Church,  in  which  the  twelve  pres- 
byters mentioned  by  Eutychius  may  be  supposed  to 
represent  the  Apostles,  and  the  bishop  must  therefore 
be  the  representative  of  the  Lord.  This,  according  to 
Ritschl,  constitutes  a  Jewish-Christian  type  of  the  epis- 

.  "  Ritschl,  Entstehung,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  415-419,  433-436. 
"  Hegisippus  in  Euseb.  H.  E.  IV.  22,  23. 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  303 

copate,  an  episcopate  which  was  not  an  office  of  a  local 
congregation,  but  aspired  to  universal  presidency  over 
the  Church  —  for  obviously  the  Lord's  representative 
and  successor  could  be  no  less  than  the  universal  bishop 
of  Christendom.  The  notion  is,  that  the  early  disciples 
accepted  St.  James  as  the  visible  head  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  upon  earth,  just  as  the  Mahometans  followed 
the  successor  of  the  Prophet. 

But  in  reality,  when  we  take  into  account  the  primi- 
tive idea  of  the  Church  and  the  organization  of  the 
Eucharistic  assembly,  all  the  information  we  have  about 
the  Churches  of  Jerusalem  and  Alexandria  accords  per- 
fectly with  the  Ignatian  ideal  of  the  episcopate.  It  is 
a  matter  of  indifference  whether  St.  James  was  ever 
known  by  the  title  of  bishop  or  not :  —  the  probability 
is  that  he  was  not,  but  he  was  certainly  the  ordinary 
president  of  the  Eucharist  in  the  Jerusalem  Church,  and 
as  such  he  must  have  been  regarded  as  the  Lord's  rep- 
resentative. It  is  true  that  St.  James  was  not  merely 
the  chief  pastor  of  a  local  congregation,  for  every 
assembly  of  Christendom  represents  the  whole  Church, 
and  its  decisions  are  valid  for  all.  Such  decisions,  how- 
ever, can  be  legally  enforced  upon  none  ;  for  every  other 
assembly  is  equally  a  manifestation  of  Christendom,  and 
its  president  is  the  representative  of  Christ.  Just  so  with 
the  Ignatian  episcopate.  The  bishop  was  never  a  mere 
congregational  officer,  although  it  was  about  his  office, 
as  the  only  settled  office  in  the  local  community,  that 
the  congregational  idea  was  developed.  He  was  always 
a  Church  officer  —  as  Christ's  representative  he  could 
be  no  less  —  and  had  duties  with  respect  to  the  whole 
Church.  But  in  all  this  there  was  no  claim  of  exclusive 
authority,  there  was  no  rivalry  between  bishops,  between 
this  representative  of  Christ  and  the  other,  no  aspiration 


304  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

after  an  episcopate  which  might  claim  the  rule  over  the 
whole  empirical  multitude  of  Christians.  Hence,  on  the 
one  hand,  the  independence  of  the  bishops ;  and  on 
the  other,  their  sense  of  ecumenical  responsibility.  This 
latter  idea,  which  was  so  great  a  factor  in  the  subsequent 
Catholic  development,  was  inherent  in  the  office  of  bishop 
as  such,  —  indeed,  in  the  nature  of  the  Christian  assem- 
bly as  such.  The  first  idea  of  office  in  the  Church  was 
that  of  charismatic  office,  which  was  of  course  an  office 
of  the  Church  at  large,  and  there  is  no  good  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  bishop's  office  was  interpreted  differ- 
ently—  that  is,  as  a  mere  congregational  office. 

We  may  now  turn  to  consider  the  more  stubborn 
difficulty  of  effecting  unity  of  organization  in  the  cities 
where  a  plurality  of  bishops  still  existed  at  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century  —  and  where  the  size  of  the  town 
and  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  made  the  single  as- 
sembly an  impossibility.  Here  for  the  first  time  we 
contemplate  what  may  with  some  propriety  be  called 
a  mo7iarchical  episcopate.  The  Ignatian  bishop  whose 
rule  was  coextensive  with  the  single  Eucharistic  assem- 
bly no  more  deserves  the  title  of  monarch  than  does  the 
Presbyterian  pastor.  This  type  of  parochial  episcopacy 
still  persisted,  though  with  important  modifications,  and 
persists  to-day,  in  certain  countries  where  Christianity 
was  early  established.  But  the  conditions  of  the  larger 
cities  required  a  new  type  of  bishop,  who  was  no  longer 
a  parochial  officer,  but,  as  we  would  say,  a  diocesan 
officer,  ruling  over  several  quasi-independent  congrega- 
tions, each  of  which  was  provided  with  its  own  pastors. 
This  became  the  normal  type  of  the  Catholic  episcopate, 
and  in  all  countries  which  were  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity after  this  development  was  complete  —  that  is. 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  305 

in  North  Italy,  Spain,  Northern  Gaul,  Britain,  and  Ger- 
many—  the  episcopal  sees  embraced  whole  counties, 
provinces,  or  even  principalities  and  kingdoms.  We 
have  now  to  inquire  how  this  development  came  about, 
and  what  changes  it  wrought  in  the  character  of  Church 
organization. 

For  the  purpose  of  the  short  sketch  I  propose  to  give 
here,  it  will  be  convenient  to  take  a  concrete  instance 
by  way  of  example,  and  none  is  so  apt  as  the  case  of 
Rome.  It  is  the  prevalent  opinion  that  the  single  epis- 
copate was  not  yet  established  at  Rome  when  Clement, 
in  behalf  of  the  Roman  Church,  wrote  his  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  nor  even  when  Ignatius  addressed  his  epis- 
tle to  the  Romans.  We  have  seen  that  the  Ignatian 
theory  affords  no  argument  which  could  serve  to  break 
down  the  existing  order  and  establish  a  single  episco- 
pate in  cities  where  there  are,  and  of  necessity  must 
be,  several  principal  assemblies.  The  testimony  of  the 
catacombs,  although  it  liardly  permits  us  to  form  a 
numerical  estimate  of  the  Roman  Church  at  any  time, 
securely  proves  that  in  the  first  decades  of  the  second 
century  it  was  already  too  large  to  meet  in  a  single 
assembly,  even  under  more  liberal  conditions  of  associa- 
tion than  the  State  ever  allowed  ;  and  it  is  evident 
moreover  that  the  great  size  of  the  town  must  ordi- 
narily have  hindered  the  disciples  from  gathering  at 
one  place.  It  is  commonly  agreed  among  those  who 
have  a  right  to  an  opinion  on  the  subject  that  even  at 
this  period  the  disciples  at  Rome  had  numerous  places 
of  assembly.  It  is  an  opinion,  indeed,  which  has  more 
truth  than  evidence  on  its  side ;  but  it  seems  so  mani- 
fest a  deduction  from  the  given  conditions  that  I  doubt 
if  any  one  could  be  found  to  support  the  view  that  there 
was  but  one  assembly  of  the  Roman  Church.     But  this 

20 


306  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

implies,  according  to  the  primitive  scheme  of  organiza- 
tion, that  there  were  as  many  bishops,  presbyteries,  and 
deacons  as  there  were  regular  assemblies  in  the  city. 
This  assumption  agrees  well  with  all  that  we  know 
securely  about  the  Roman  Church  at  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century. 

We  have  to  assume  again  —  and  this  assumption  too 
we  can  securely  make  —  that  a  stringent  necessity  was 
felt  for  a  more  centralized  organization.  The  pressure 
of  heresy  became  more  serious  than  even  the  Ignatian 
Epistles  reveal  it ;  even  organized  congregations  were 
liable  to  be  invaded ;  and  the  need  was  recognized  of 
opposing  a  united  front  to  its  progress.  Especially 
was  it  necessary  for  the  greatest  Churches  of  Christen- 
dom to  stand  out  clearly  as  leaders  of  the  rest  with 
a  ready  and  unambiguous  testimony  to  the  traditional 
faith.  The  problem  was  to  discover  a  center  of  unity 
to  which  appeal  could  be  made  for  an  authoritative 
definition  of  the  faith  of  the  Roman  Church.  The  ques- 
tion at  once  arises.  Why  might  not  the  presbytery  have 
constituted  such  a  center  of  unity  ?  Simply  because 
there  were  several  presbyteries,  and  they  were  not 
accustomed  to  act  together.  A  college  of  bishops  was 
equally  out  of  the  question,  for  the  bishop  was  essen- 
tially an  independent  officer,  and  the  notion  of  a  college 
of  bishops  did  not  yet  exist.  What  did  exist,  however, 
was  a  very  clear  notion  of  centralized  organization  under 
a  single  bishop  as  it  was  already  exemplified  in  almost 
all  of  the  small  towns  and  in  many  of  the  great  ones. 
That  this  was  the  only  possible  solution  we  cannot 
affirm,  but  it  is  certain  that  it  was  the  solution  actually 
resorted  to.  The  great  practical  obstacle  in  the  way  of 
such  a  change  was  the  difficulty  of  eliminating  the 
several  bishops  already  in   the  field.     There  was  also 


§19]  THE  EUCHARIST  307 

a  grave  theoretical  obstacle  in  the  fact  that  the  bishop 
was  essentially  the  president  of  the  Eucharist  —  con- 
versely, that  emry  regular  president  of  a  Eucharistic 
assembly  (of  a  principal  assembly  at  least)  was  a  bishop. 
A  practical  obstacle  such  as  this  could  never  have  been 
surmounted  except  in  the  face  of  an  imminent  danger 
and  under  the  stress  of  a  necessity  which  all  recognized 
as  imperative.  I  do  not  pretend  to  explain  hoiv  the 
extra  bishops  were  got  rid  of ;  but  whatever  the  pro- 
cess may  have  been,  the  accomplishment  could  have 
been  hardly  more  difficult  than  the  subsequent  absorp- 
tion of  the  country  bishops  in  the  presbytery,  and  their 
deposition  to  a  rank  lower  than  that  of  the  city  pres- 
byters. It  must  also  be  taken  into  account  that  the 
dogma  that  there  can  be  but  one  bishop  in  a  city  was 
not  established  until  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
as  a  result  of  the  Novatianist  schism. 

The  theoretical  difficulty  was  met  by  a  new  theory 
of  the  episcopate ;  namely,  the  theory  of  apostolic  suc- 
cession. Here  we  reach  a  point  where  we  have  explicit 
information  and  are  no  longer  left  to  our  own  con- 
jectures and  assumptions.  It  is  true  that  the  earliest 
information  we  have  about  the  doctrine  of  apostolic 
succession  comes  to  us  from  the  end  of  the  second 
century  (Irenaeus),  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  this 
theory  essentially  conditioned  the  development,  and 
was  not  merely  a  belated  attempt  to  rationalize  it. 
Fortunate  it  is  that  we  have  reliable  information  here, 
for  who  could  guess  that  the  bishop  had  attained  a 
higher  authority  as  representative  of  the  Apostles  than 
he  had  enjoyed  as  the  representative  of  Christ?  At 
first  sight  the  new  theory  seems  like  a  derogation  of 
the  previous  claim  in  behalf  of  the  bishop.  But  in 
reality  it  is  not  3  for  if   the  new  theory  was  ideally 


308  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

less  lofty  than  the  old,  it  was  more  concrete,  and  it 
furnished,  as  the  other  did  not,  a  justification  of  the 
exclusive  authority  of  the  bishop  in  his  own  town.  It 
provided,  moreover,  a  point  of  view  which  served  later 
to  justify  the  preeminence  of  certain  bishops  over  the 
rest;  that  is  to  say,  the  hegemony  which  the  greater 
Churches  of  Christendom,  especially  those  which  boasted 
an  apostolic  foundation,  claimed  over  the  others,  —  lead- 
ing finally  to  the  formal  development  of  metropolitan  and 
patriarchal  authority.  And  lastly,  it  gave  the  bishop 
a  status  which  was  independent  of  his  function  as  presi- 
dent of  the  Eucharist,  constituting  him,  as  it  did,  the 
supreme  and  formally  authorized  teacher. 

The  earliest  notion  of  apostolic  succession  which 
we  encounter  in  Christian  literature,  viz.  in  the  1st 
Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians,  cc.  42,  44,  has 
little  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  later  doctrine  which 
we  know  under  this  name.  It  simply  guaranteed  the 
legal  right,  as  we  may  perhaps  call  it,  of  bishops  and 
deacons  to  the  privileges  of  their  office,  on  the  ground 
of  the  orderly  appointment  they  had  received  according 
to  the  system  initiated  by  the  apostles.  This  notion 
involved  no  implication  whatever  of  the  preeminent 
authority  of  a  single  bishop  in  each  town.  The  doc- 
trine which  influenced  the  development  of  the  second 
century  bore  especially  upon  this  question  of  the  single 
bishop,  and  it  may  properly  be  called  the  doctrine  of 
apostolic  succession,  although  it  must  be  discriminated 
from  certain  radically  novel  elements  which  were  in- 
troduced by  Cyprian  in  the  third  century,  as  well  as 
from  others  which  entered  into  the  conception  as  it  was 
finally  formulated  in  the  Middle  Ages. 

The  early  doctrine  of  apostolic  succession  involved 
no  notion  of  a  mystical  infusion  of  apostolic  character 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  309 

or  capacity.     It  was,  on  the  contrary,  wholly  a  common- 
sense   doctrine,  founded  upon  a  concrete    assumption, 
and  advancing  to  a  perfectly  pragmatic  inference.     The 
assumption  was  that  certain  individual  apostles  were 
the  original  founders,  or  for  some  time  the  chief  pastors, 
of   this  and  the  other  of   the    principal    Churches   of 
Christendom;  and  that  the  single  authority  over  the 
local  Church  which  was  represented  in  the  person  of 
such  an  apostle  was  perpetuated  in  the  person  of  a  single 
successor.     This  is  essentially  an  imaginative  construc- 
tion of  history ;  and  yet,  the  first  part  of  the  assump- 
tion was  manifestly  true  of  several  Churches,  and  even 
the  latter  part  it  would  be  hard  to  impeach  in  the  case 
of  some  few,  —  Jerusalem  is  certainly  an  instance  in 
point,  and  so  perhaps  is  Alexandria.     The  inference  — 
or  perhaps  we  had  better  call  it  an  additional  assump- 
tion—  was,  that  the  single  successor  of  the  apostolic 
founder   inherited   his   authority  (now   regarded  as    a 
legal  authority),  and  with  it -a  store  of  apostolic  tradi- 
tion.    The  single  bishop  (particularly  in  such  sees  as 
claimed  an  apostolic  origin)  was  thus  regarded  as  the 
repository  of  apostolic  tradition.     The  bishop  as  such  was 
not  regarded  as  the  inheritor  of  the  apostolic  charisma, 
but  of  a  store  of  tradition  which  he  had  received  in 
a  perfectly  natural  way  like  a  scholar  from  his  master. 
Since  the  bishop's  authority  did  not  rest  upon  the  pos- 
session of  a  charismatic  endowment    it  "was  regarded 
as  a  legal  authority  —  and  yet  not  merely  so,  for  it  was 
supposed  to  rest  upon  a  real  possession,  not  indeed  upon 
an  inherent  teaching  faculty,  yet  none  the  less  upon 
a  teaching  equiprnent     The  possession  of  apostolic  tra- 
dition was  the  bishop's  supreme  title  to  authority,  not 
only  in  the  local  Church,  but  in  the  Church  at  large; 
for  as  the  reputed  possessor  of  God's  word  (however  he 


310  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

came  by  it)  his  authority  was  as  much  an  ecumeni- 
cal authority  as  was  that  of  the  charismatic  teacher, 
whether  prophet  or  apostle. 

This  theory  of  the  apostolic  succession  was  a  power- 
ful and  plausible  one  so  long  as  the  unwritten  tradition 
was  still  a  lively  factor  in  Church  teaching ;  but  its 
force  was  weakened  with  every  generation,  and  we  can 
readily  understand  the  necessity  which  subsequently  led 
to  the  radical  modification  of  the  earlier  view  —  a  modi- 
fication or  transformation  which  consisted  principally  in 
substituting  for  the  historical  assumption  a  mystical 
theory  of  an  episcopal  charisma  veritatis  which  inhered 
in  all  bishops  alike,  a  theory  of  an  abstract  episcopate 
which  was  regarded  as  the  representative  of  the  apos- 
tolic primacy  of  Peter,  and  which  all  bishops  shared  in 
solidum.  The  early  theory,  however,  was  the  more 
effective  one  so  long  as  there  were  still  bishops  who 
might  claim  to  be  disciples  of  the  Apostles  in  the  first 
or  second  remove.  At  all  events,  this  is  the  only  theory 
ever  broached  which  could  have  had  the  effect  of  reduc- 
ing the  plural  episcopate,  which  was  common  in  the 
West  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  to  the 
type  of  the  monarchical  episcopate,  which  was  every 
where  triumphant  by  the  middle  of  that  century.  But 
we  are  now  upon  ground  that  is  familiar  to  all  who 
have  studied  the  Catholic  episcopate,  and  without  in- 
quiring further  into  the  causes  of  the  development,  I 
will  notice  briefly  the  immediate  effects  of  it  upon 
Church  organization. 

The  development  of  the  monarchical  episcopate 
affected  even  more  radically  the  status  of  the  presby- 
ter than  that  of  the  bishop.  For  the  presbyters,  whose 
functions  had  hitherto  been  vague,  who  had  but  lately 
acquired  fixed  official  rank,  and  who  even  with   that 


§  19]  THE  EUCHARIST  311 

were  still  obliged  to  act  as  a  body, —  that  is,  as  a  pres- 
bytery, and  not  individually,  —  were  henceforth  to  be 
independent  parochial  pastors  and  the  ordinary  presi- 
dents of  the  Eucharist. 

Supposing  that  the  extra  bishops  were  successfully 
eliminated  as  the  theory  required,  the  question  re- 
mained, who  should  preside  in  the  assemblies  which  ex 
liypotliesi  could  not  be  combined  into  one  under  a  single 
bishop.  The  answer  was  not  doubtful :  the  presbyters, 
who  alone  sat  with  the  bishop  at  the  Lord's  table,  were 
the  only  possible  substitutes  for  the  bishop  at  the  Eu- 
charist, and  presidency  at  the  Eucharist  carried  all  else 
with  it.  It  is  plausible  to  suppose  that  the  elders  or 
presbyters  had  always  served  as  the  readiest  and  most 
natural  substitutes  for  the  bishop  at  the  Eucharist  in 
case  of  his  absence  or  indisposition ;  and  in  towns 
where  the  single  episcopate  had  long  been  traditionally 
established,  the  growth  of  the  community  may  have 
compelled  the  bishop  to  recognize  the  presbyters  as 
his  ordinary  delegates  in  the  presidency  of  separate 
assemblies  which  could  not  join  in  the  bishop's  Eucha- 
rist. In  any  case,  the  way  was  certainly  not  utterly 
unprepared  for  the  crisis  which  devolved  upon  the 
presbyters  the  still  more  independent  functions  of 
parochial  pastors  in  such  cities  as  had  previously  re- 
quired a  plurality  of  bishops.  For  a  long  while,  how- 
ever, they  seem  not  to  have  acted  singly  in  the  capacity 
of  pastors,  for  as  late  at  least  as  the  third  century  the  rule 
required  that  there  be  two  presbyters  in  every  Church. 

In  sharing  his  rights  as  president  of  the  Eucharist 
the  bishop  relinquished  his  most  distinctive  and  ex- 
clusive function.  But  it  is  interesting  to  note  the 
various  efforts  which  were  made  to  maintain  some 
semblance  or   vestige  of   the  ancient  order  of  things. 


312  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

For  instance,  the  Roman  Liher  Pontificalis  refers  to 
Melchiades  (a.d.  311)  the  custom  of  sending  particles 
of  the  consecrated  elements  from  the  bishop's  Eucharist 
to  all  the  titles  (parochial  churches)  of  the  city,  with- 
out which  the  presbyters  might  not  celebrate  the  sacra- 
ment. This  was  a  mere  symbol  of  the  bishop's  rights 
as  president  of  all  Eucharistic  assemblies  within  his  see. 
But  the  same  rights  were  more  concretely  exhibited  in 
the  fact  that  the  bishop  was  actually  the  president  in 
whatever  assembly  he  chanced  to  be ;  and  there  is  rea- 
son to  suppose  that  where  there  were  a  number  of  prin- 
cipal assemblies  within  his  diocese,  each  with  its 
appropriate  house  of  worship,  the  bishop  was  accus- 
tomed to  preside  now  in  one  and  now  in  another.  It 
is  a  striking  fact  that  the  ancient  basilicas  of  Rome, 
beginning  with  those  of  the  fourth  century,  are  all  of 
them  cathedral  churches.  The  bishop's  cathedra  is 
established  in  all  of  them  between  the  seats  of  the 
presbyters,  and  the  presbyters  who  presided  there  in 
the  bishop's  absence  must  have  done  so  expressly  as 
his  delegates,  as  do  the  cardinal  presbyters  to-day  in 
their  titular  basilicas. 

The  reader  is  likely  to  be  surprised  at  the  many 
grave  assertions  which  are  here  set  forth  with  little  or 
no  proof.  So  I  must  hasten  to  note  that  the  proof  is 
intentionally  deferred  in  order  that  the  general  view, 
which  is  so  liable  to  be  lost  in  the  study  of  detail,  may 
once  for  all  be  clearly  fixed  in  the  mind.  This  section 
is  a  mere  sketch  of  the  development  of  the  episcopate, 
and  the  remainder  of  this  first  volume  and  a  consider- 
able part  of  the  second  must  be  occupied  with  the  de- 
tailed study  of  the  problems  which  are  here  suggested. 
But  I  trust  that  the  theory  I  here  propose  will  prove 


§  20]  CHURCH   PROPERTY  313 

convincing  on  the  mere  strength  of  its  inherent  reason- 
ableness and  coherency.  Documentary  proofs,  so  far  as 
such  exist,  will  be  forthcoming  in  the  course  of  the 
following  sections;  and  I  dare  to  hope  that  all  objec- 
tions which  may  already  have  occurred  to  the  reader 
will  there  find  an  answer. 

For  the  present  we  must  leave  the  problems  of  the 
Catholic  episcopate  and  return  to  the  organization  of 
the  primitive  age,  where  we  have  to  trace  the  pre- 
liminary stages  of  the  development. 


§  20,   CHUECH   PEOPEKTY 

Undoubtedly,  one  of  the  factors  which  contributed 
most  to  the  development  of  the  congregational  idea, 
the  congregational  organization  as  a  whole,  and  the 
bishop's  office  in  particular,  was  the  possession  and 
administration  of  Church  property.  Yet  the  impor- 
tance of  this  factor  may  easily  be  exaggerated.  Hatch, 
for  instance,  has  unduly  exploited  it  in  proof  of  his  con- 
tention that  the  bishop  was  originally  hardly  more  than 
an  economic  officer,  who  by  reason  of  the  power  which 
he  exercised  as  steward  of  the  Church  property  was 
able  gradually  to  gain  control  over  all  other  functions 
of  Church  government  and  worship.  Apart  altogether 
from  this  extravagant  theory,  it  is  commonly  assumed 
that  the  possession  and  administration  of  Church  prop- 
erty implies  of  necessity  the  legal  organization  of  the 
Church,  or  at  least  of  the  congregation.  It  is  therefore 
highly  important  to  inquire  what  was  the  nature  of 
Church  property,  by  whom  it  might  be  received  and 
administered,  for  what  purposes  disbursed,  and  under 
what  points  of  view  it  was  regarded.  Sohm's  investi- 
gation has  put  the  whole  subject  in  a  new  light,  and  all 


314  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

that  I  have  to  say  in  this  section  is  taken  substantially 
from  his  work.^ 

Presidency  at  the  Eucharist  implied  the  reception 
and  administration  of  the  offerings  which  were  there 
presented  for  the  furnishing  of  the  feast  and  for  distri- 
bution to  the  poor,  and  it  is  these  offerings  which  con- 
stituted the  main  source  of  Church  property.^     He  who 

1  Sohm,  §  8,  pp.  69-81. 

2  The  Lord's  Supper  included  the  agape,  and  this  double  feast  was 
furnished  by  the  fi-ee-will  offerings  which  each  member  brought  with 
him  to  the  assembly.  Cf.  1  Cor.  11  :  21,  22  ;  and  later  notices  by  Justin, 
Irenaeus,  TertuUian,  Cyprian,  etc. ;  and  the  discussion  by  Th.  Harnack, 
Gemeindegottesdienst,  pp.  254,  288,  391,  478.  But  other  gifts  used  also  to 
be  bi'ought  to  the  Eucharistic  feast  which  were  not  to  be  consumed  at  the 
agape,  —  cf.  the  account  given  by  Justin  Martyr  in  Apol.  I.  67  (quoted 
below  in  note  3).  Li  particular,  this  was  taken  as  the  occasion  for  the 
offering  of  the  first-fruits,  an  obligation  which  was  exacted  of  the  disciples 
under  the  influence  of  the  O.  T.  regulation.  Cf.  Irenaeus,  adv.  Iiaer. 
(about  A.  D.  180)  IV.  31  :  3,  Oportet  enim  nos  oblationem  deo  facere  .  .  . 
primitias  earum,  quae  sunt  ejus,  creaturarum  offerentes.  Et  hanc  obla- 
tionem ecclesia  sola  puram  offert  fabricatori,  oft'erens  ei  cum  gratiarum 
actione  ex  creatura  ejus.  It  was  later  specified  (Apoi^t.  Canons,  cc.  3,  4) 
that  only  the  first-fi'uits  of  corn,  grapes,  oil  and  incense  might  be  brought 
to  the  altar.  Since  the  third  century  at  least,  the  mite-chests  that  were 
placed  in  the  churches  might  also  be  used  for  the  offerings,  —  Cyprian, 
de  opere  et  eleem.  c.  1-5;  Apost.  Const.  II.  c.  36.  In  early  times  the  gifts 
were  made  generally  in  kind.  By  Cyprian  they  are  called  sportulae,  and 
are  compared  with  the  tithes  of  the  Old  Testament  {Ep.  1  :  1,  tamquam 
decimas),  —  O.  Ritschl,  Ci/prian,  pp.  206,  207.  There  was  no  obligation, 
however,  to  give  precisely  the  tenth  of  one's  goods.  The  Didache,  xiii. 
3  sqq.,  speaks  only  of  the  "first-fruits,"  which  were  to  be  given  to  the 
prophets  or  to  the  poor.  Even  in  Cyprian  {de  eccl.  unit,  c.  26)  we  find 
the  expression,  nunc  de  patrimonio  nee  decimas  damus.  It  is  in  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  that  we  find  for  the  first  time  the  tithes  men- 
tioned regularly  along  with  first-fruits  and  free-will  offerings  {tKovcna), 
—  IL  cc.  25,  27,  28,  34-36 ;  IIL  c.  4;  IV.  cc.  6-10;  VIL  c.  29;  VIIL 
c.  29.  —  Besides  the  offerings  in  kind,  there  were,  in  the  West  at  least, 
monthly  contributions  in  money  (cf.  Tertul.  Apol.  c.  39,  modicam  unus- 
quisque  stipem  menstrua  die  vel  cum  velit  et  si  modo  velit  et  si  modo  possit 
apponit ;  nam  nemo  compellitur,  sed  sponte  confert)  and  a  corresponding 
monthly  distribution  to  the  clergy  (divisiones  mensurnae,  Cypr.  ep. 
34  :  4;  39  :  5;  cf.  O.  Ritschl,  Cyprian,  p.  207;  —  also  in  Rome,  cf.  Euseb. 
H.  E.  V.  28  :  10).     The  monthly  contributions  correspond  with  the  usage 


§  20]  CHURCH   PROPERTY  315 

made  the  prayer  of  thanksgiving  at  the  Eucharist  and 
received  the  offerings  was  at  the  same  time  the  ordinary 
dispenser  of  the  gifts ;  ^  for  administration  did  not  mean 
hoarding  and  increasing,  but  prompt  and  impartial  dis- 
tribution to  the  various  objects  of  the  Church's  charity. 
The  gifts  of  the  Church  served  principally  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  poor,  for  the  practical  philanthropy  which 
was  so  characteristic  a  feature  of  Christianity.*     It  lay 

of  the  secular  guilds ;  yet  with  this  difference,  that  the  Church  did  not 
specify  the  amount  of  the  contribution,  nor  exact  it  if  it  could  not  be  paid 
regularly  or  on  a  particular  day,  whereas  in  all  the  pagan  clubs  or  guilds 
the  payment  of  the  regular  dues  was  a  condition  of  membership.  The 
significance  of  the  gifts  was  ever  the  same :  they  were  offerings  which 
were  presented  to  God  through  the  medium  of  the  recipient.  Hence  it  is 
that  they  were  generally  j)resented  at  the  Eucharist.  Cf.  Apost.  Const. 
II.  c.  25 :  "  What  were  then  (in  the  Old  Testament)  first-fruits,  and  tithes, 
and  consecrated  things,  and  gifts,  are  now  oblations,  which  are  presented 
by  the  holy  bishops  to  the  Lord  God." 

3  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  I.  c.  67  (after  the  account  of  the  Eucharistic 
celebration  conducted  by  the  "president  of  the  brethren  ")  :  "  They  that 
are  well-to-do  and  willing  give  what  each  one  thinks  fit,  and  what  is  col- 
lected is  deposited  with  the  president,  and  he  succors  the  orphans  and 
widows,  and  those  who  through  sickness  or  any  other  cause  are  in  want, 
and  those  who  are  in  bonds,  and  the  strangers  sojourning  among  us,  — 
in  a  word,  he  becomes  the  care-taker  of  all  that  are  needy."  We  find  the 
bishop  referred  to  as  both  receiver  and  dispenser  of  the  gifts  in  1  Clem, 
ad  Cor.  c.  44:  "It  will  be  no  light  sin  for  us,  if  we  thrust  out  those  who 
have  offered  the  gifts  of  the  bishop's  office  unblameably  and  holily."  The 
distribution  of  the  gifts  is  a  part  of  the  "offering  "  of  them  to  God;  and 
the  qualification  "  unblameably  and  holily  "  is  the  more  significant  if  we 
take  it  to  refer  to  this  delicate  part  of  the  bishop's  function.  In  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem,  before  the  appointment  of  the  Seven,  the  Apostles 
alone  exercised  both  the  ministiy  of  the  word  and  the  ministry  of  tables, 
that  is,  the  distribution  of  the  gifts  (Acts  6  :  2-4). 

*  Tertul.  Apol.  c.  39  :  the  contributions  of  the  Church  members  are 
used  non  epulis  nee  potaculis  (as  in  the  pagan  societies),  sed  egenis 
alendis  humandisque.  Didache,  xi.  7 :  when  there  is  no  prophet  in  the 
congregation  the  first-fruits  shall  be  given  to  the  poor.  Apart  from 
the  care  of  the  poor,  the  Church  property  served  for  the  support  of  the 
teachers  of  the  Gospel  (see  above,  p.  247),  and  later  for  the  support  of 
the  clergy  (see  above,  note  2,  on  the  distribution  of  sportulae  to  the 
clergy,  and  regular  sums  of  money,  —  cf.  also  below,  note  I).     According 


316  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  the  gifts  flowed  in  most 
abundantly  at  the  principal  assembly.  We  have  seen 
that  the  presidency  of  the  principal  assembly  fell 
naturally  to  the  most  highly  esteemed  teacher  in 
the  community,  —  that  is  to  say,  the  gift  of  admin- 
istering the  word  was  one  of  the  requisites  of  this 
office.  We  have  now  to  add  as  a  further  requi- 
site the  gift  of  administering  the  Church  property. 
These  two  faculties  will  appear  far  from  incompat- 
ible when  we  have  inquired,  What  is  the  nature  of 
Church  property  ?  and  what  does  the  administration 
of  it  signify  ? 

If  the  local  community  of  disciples  had  been  regarded 
as  a  guild,  or  as  a  secular  society  of  any  sort,  associated 
and  organized  according  to  a  secular  norm,  the  property 
which  it  possessed  must  have  been  regarded  as  the  prop- 
erty of  the  society,  to  be  controlled  and  expended  ac- 
cording to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  congregation.  But 
nothing  of  the  sort  was  the  case.  It  is  true  that  in  the 
third  century  and  later  we  hear  of  the  pecunia  ecclesiac^ 

to  Euseb.  H.  E.  VI.  43  :  11  there  were  155  clergy  and  1500  poor  sup- 
ported by  the  Roman  Church  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
The  Church  property  was  intended  solely  for  distribution ^  and  so  in  the 
earliest  time  those  who  possessed  real  estate  which  they  wished  to  present 
to  the  Church,  promptly  sold  it  and  contributed  its  price  to  the  common 
fund  (of.  Acts  2  :  45 ;  4  :  34-37 ;  5  :  1  sqq.).  While  it  was  essential  to 
the  aim  of  the  pagan  societies  or  clubs  to  form  a  nucleus  of  club  prop- 
erty, an  area  communis  (of  which,  under  certain  circumstances  at  least, 
a  member  on  leaving  the  society  might  require  his  share)  ;  the  Church, 
on  the  contrary,  during  the  first  centuries  amassed  no  fund  of  earthly 
possessions.  In  principle  the  Church  was  without  property ;  with  respect 
to  earthly  goods  it  took  no  care  for  the  morrow  neither  gathered  into 
barns ;  collections  were  made  for  the  immediate  necessity  and  straight- 
way expended.  The  Church  thus  "  lived  from  hand  to  mouth  " ;  its  only 
capital  was  the  readiness  of  its  members  to  contribute  (O.  Ritschl, 
Cyprian,  pp.  204  sqq.). 

^  Cyprian,  ep.  52  :  1,  2.  Cf.  Tertullian,  de  praescr.  haeret.  c.  30  : 
Marcion  quidem  cum  ducentis  sestertiis  quae  ecclesiae  intulerat. 


§20]  CHURCH   PROPERTY  317 

and  the  iKKXrjcnacrTLKa  npoiyixaTa,^  and  so  soon  as  the 
Church  possessed  a  distinctive  house  of  worship  we  find 
it  called  the  oTko'^  Trj<;  iKKk-qcria'^,"  —  that  means,  how- 
ever, if  we  translate  literally,  the  property  or  house  "^  of 
Christendom."  But  from  the  primitive  j)oint  of  view 
such  property  of  Christendom  is  not  the  property  of 
the  congregation,  but  rather  God's  property  ;  and  hence 
the  house  of  worship  was  known  more  properly  by  the 
name,  "  the  house  of  God,"  ^  and  both  this  and  all  other 
goods  which  were  dedicated  to  the  use  of  the  Church  were 
called  ra  KvpiaKa,  —  the  Lord's  possession.^  Such  was 
unquestionably  the  view  of  the  very  earliest  time.  The 
gifts  which  constituted  the  pecunia  ecclesiae  were  re- 
garded as  offerings,  presented  to  God,  not  to  men,  nor 
even  to  the  Church ;  and  hence  to  give  a  lying  account 
of  such  gifts  was  to  lie  not  unto  men  but  unto  God.^^ 
This  religious,  spiritual  conception  effectually  excluded 
during  the  first  three  centuries  any  legal  notion  ;  it 
was  the  only  conception  current  with  regard  to  Church 
property,  and  alone  determined  its  status  and  use. 
Church  property  therefore  constitutes  no  exception  to 
the  rule  we  have  insisted  upon.  Even  for  the  admin- 
istration of  Church  property  there  need  be  —  properly 
considered,  there  can  be  —  no  purely  human  and  legally 
devised  organization,  no  finance  administration  of  the 
worldly  sort,  and  no  economic  officers  who  exercise 
their  functions  solely  in  virtue  of  a  regular  or  legal 
commission  from  the  congregation.     Over  God's  prop- 

*  Apost.  Const.  II.  c.  35 ;  Apost.  Canons,  c.  40. 

T  Euseb.  H.  E.  VII.  30  :  19.  The  building  itself  is  called  by  Clemens 
Alex.  (Stromat.  VII.  c.  5)  eKKXrjala. 

8  Ilippolytus  (Hippolyti  frogm.  ed.  Lagarde,  p.  149)  :  rov  oIkov  tov  deov. 
TertuUian,  adv.  Valentin,  (a.  d.  205-208)  c.  3  :  nostrae  columbae  domus. 

'  For  example,  Apost.  Const,  cc.  24  sqq. 

10  Acts  5:3,4,  9. 


318  THE  EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

erty  the  congregation  has  no  authority,  nor  has  any 
man,  but  only  God  alone. 

Hence  it  is  only  in  God's  name  that  the  gifts  of 
the  Church  can  be  received  and  administered.  The 
reception  and  administration  of  Church  property  is  a 
'priestly  act,  which  can  be  performed  only  by  God's 
representative.^^ 

Who  is  the  priestly  vicar  of  God  in  the  Ecclesia  ? 
The  answer  of  the  primitive  age  is  one  which  our  pre- 
vious discussion  has  prepared  us  to  expect :  the  gifted 
teacher  is  God's  representative  in  this  function  as  in  all 
other  functions  of  government  and  administration.  In 
his  teaching  charisma  is  included  the  charisma  of  ad- 
ministering the  gifts ;  and  this  administration  appears 
the  more  appropriate  to  the  teaching  office,  since  it  con- 
sisted principally  in  distributing  to  the  necessities  of  the 
saints,  and  was  therefore  closely  related  to  the  cure  of 
souls.  Hence  it  is  that  in  the  first  days  of  the  Church 
at  Jerusalem  the  Apostles  both  received  and  adminis- 
tered the  gifts,^^  until  "  seven  "  other  gifted  teachers, 
"  men  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  were  appointed  to  per- 
form a  part  of  this  service  in  their  stead,  as  men  who 
likewise  were  endowed  by  God  for  such  an  office. ^^     For 

11  Didaclie,  xiii.  3  :  the  first-fi'uits  shall  be  brought  to  the  prophets, 
"for  they  are  your  high  priests."  Apost.  Const.  II.  c.  27:  "ye  ought 
therefore  to  bring  your  sacrifices  and  oblations  to  the  bishop  as  to  a  high 
priest,"  c.  34  :  "  giving  to  him  (the  bishop)  as  to  God's  priest,"  c.  35 : 
"  For  it  is  thy  duty  to  give,  and  his  to  administer  ;  .  .  .  for  he  has  One 
who  will  call  him  to  account,  the  Lord  God,  who  put  this  administration 
into  his  hands  and  counted  him  worthy  of  the  priesthood  of  so  great 
dignity." 

12  Acts  4:  35,37;  5:  2;  6:  2. 

18  Acts  6 :  1  sqq.  The  men  chosen  for  the  ministry  of  tables  (dis- 
tribution of  the  gifts)  must  be  "  full  of  the  Spirit  and  of  wisdom." 
Among  them  was  Stephen,  "  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  "  ;  and 
Philip,  who  afterwards  appeared  as  an  evangelist  (cf.  Acts  8:  5  sqq.,  40; 
21 :  8).     It  is  plain  that  fulness  of  the  Spirit  and  of  wisdom  means  the 


§20]  CHURCH   PROPERTY  319 

the  same  reason  the  prophets  received  the  gifts  and 
first-fruits  (both  being  alike  regarded  as  offerings  to 
God)  as  the  high-priestly  administrators  of  God's  prop- 
erty.^*    How  completely  this  excludes  the  notion  that 

gift  of  teaching-  the  word,  of  proclaiming  the  Gospel.  Teaching  and  the 
administration  of  the  gifts  stood  in  a  practical  relation  to  one  another> 
since  both  ministered  to  the  cure  of  souls ;  but  the  chief  significance  of  the 
charisma  in  this  connection  lay  in  the  fact  that  it  singled  out  the  possessor 
as  one  called  by  God  to  act  in  his  stead.  —  From  the  above  we  may  see 
how  little  justification  there  is  for  the  widely  prevalent  view  that  the 
formation  of  an  organized  congregation  at  Jerusalem  began  with  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Seven,  which  has  been  i-egarded  since  the  third  century 
as  the  origin  of  the  diaconate  (cf.  Cyprian,  ep.  3  :  3),  and  lately  by 
Ritschl  {Entstehung,  pp.  35.5-357)  as  the  origin  of  the  presbyterate.  The 
Seven  are  not  to  be  accounted  mere  functionaries  of  the  local  congregation 
at  Jerusalem,  any  more  than  were  the  Apostles :  they  did  not  act  in  the 
name  of  the  congregation,  but  like  the  Apostles  they  were  God's  ministers 
and  representatives,  and  acted  only  in  God's  name.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  office  of  the  Seven  had  but  a  short  duration.  In  Rome,  however,  the 
number  of  the  deacons  was  limited  to  seven  with  obvious  reference  to 
this  early  institution,  and  the  view  of  the  Roman  Chui'ch  is  reflected  in 
the  passage  from  Cyprian  just  cited.     Cf.  §  22. 

1*  Didache,  xiii.  3,  —  see  above,  note  11.  The  prophet  receives  the 
first-fruits  not  merely  for  his  own  support,  but  principally  for  the  pur- 
pose of  distributing  them  to  the  poor.  For  the  prophet  himself,  accord- 
ing to  the  Didache,  is  bound  to  lead  an  ascetic  life  (xi.  3  :  apostles  and 
prophets  must  live  Kara  doyfxa  tov  evayytXlov  ;  y.  8  :  the  prophet  must  have 
the  rpoTToi  Kvpiov  ;  in  both  passages  a  life  of  poverty  without  cares  and 
without  possessions  is  meant,  —  also  without  marriage,  v.  11,  —  cf. 
Harnack's  notes  on  these  passages).  Harnack's  view,  Proleg.  p.  120,  that 
only  the  wandering  prophet  was  bound  to  lead  an  ascetic  life,  rests  upon 
the  false  assumption  that  the  wandering  prophet  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  apostle  ;  whereas  the  wandering  prophet  himself  is  an  apostle. 
The  prophet  of  the  Didache,  who  like  the  apostle  is  required  to  live 
"  according  to  the  Gospel,"  is  obviously  a  person  who  has  taken  up  his 
abode  in  the  congregation  :  he  receives  the  first-fruits,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  he  is  bound  to  lead  an  ascetic  life.  As  the  servant  of  God  the 
prophet  has  a  special  vocation  to  minister  to  the  poor  :  the  true  prophet 
can  "  in  the  Spirit  "  order  the  preparation  of  a  meal  (  "  a  table  "  )  for  the 
poor,  but  he  may  not  taste  of  it  himself ;  he  can  "  in  the  Spirit  "  order 
money,  again  not  for  himself,  but  for  the  poor  (xi.  9, 12  ;  —  it  was  charged 
against  the  Montanistic  prophets  that  they  took  money  for  themselves, 
Euseb.  H.  E.  V.  18  :  4  sqq.).  In  like  manner  the  first-fruits  were  given 
to  the  prophet  (and  this  is  undoubtedly  to  be  associated  with  the  fact 


320  THE  EUCHARISTIC  ASSEMBLY  [IV 

Church  property  is  to  be  administered  in  the  name  of 
the  congregation. 

In  the  early  Church  at  Jerusalem  certain  members 
brought  the  price  of  their  possessions  and  laid  them 
"  at  the  Apostles'  feet."  These  offerings,  like  all  others, 
became  God's  property,  which  is  equivalent  to  Church 
property.  But  were  they  regarded  as  the  property  of 
the  congregation  ?  and  was  it  as  officials  of  the  congre- 
gation that  the  Apostles  disposed  of  them  ?  The  first- 
fruits,  which  according  to  the  Didaehe  were  given  to  the 
prophets  as  "  high-priests,"  were  likewise  Church  prop- 
erty (God's  property)  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word. 
Did  they  then  belong  to  the  congregation  ?  and  did  the 
prophets,  either  in  distributing  them  to  the  poor  or 
in  using  them  for  themselves,  act  as  congregational 
officials  ?  Certainly  not.  Why  then  should  the  func- 
tion of  the  bishop  be  interpreted  differently,  when  the 
earliest  evidence  we  have  on  this  point  attributes  to 
him  the  same  character  as  God's  representative  ?  It 
was  as  "  priest  of  God,"  as  6eov  oIkovoixo^;,  that  the 
bishop  exercised  authority  over  the  Church  property. 

It  was  not  till  the  fourth  century,  when  the  legal 
organization  was  already  penetrating  all  spheres  of 
Church  life,  that  a  juristic  conception  was  applied  to 
Church  property.  But  even  then  the  primitive  religious 
conception  was  not  altogether  superseded :  the  idea 
which  became  the  ruling  one  was  not  that  of  corporate 

that  the  prophet  was  president  of  the  Eucharist),  but  again,  not  princi- 
pally for  his  own  use,  but  that  he  might  divide  them  among  the  poor. 
Hence  the  injunction  in  xiii.  4  :  when  no  prophet  is  at  hand  the  first- 
fruits  shall  be  given  (directly)  to  the  poor.  The  prophet,  with  the  re- 
ception of  the  gifts,  had  also  the  administration  (distribution)  of  them. 
Hence  the  comprehensive  superintendency  which  the  prophets  enjoyed,  — 
Lucian,  Peregr.  Prot.  C.  11  :  Trpocpfi-rqi  Ka\  diaa-dpxrji  Kai  ^vuayayevs.  In 
the  gift  of  prophecy  lies  the  gift  of  regiment,  and  with  it  the  gift  of  ad- 
ministering the  Church  property. 


§20]  CHURCH  PROPERTY  321 

property,  but  of  institutional  property,  —  Church  prop- 
erty only  in  the  sense  that  it  was  held  by  the  Church 
in  trust  for  the  ends  which  God  might  be  supposed  to 
designate.  Hence  even  from  the  legal  point  of  view 
it  still  remained  God's  possession,  and  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  Middle  Ages  the  law  of  Church  property 
was  governed  by  the  idea,  that  it  is  virtually  the  prop- 
erty of  God  or  of  the  saints.  The  conception  that  the 
congregation  itself  is  the  possessor  of  the  goods  which  it 
holds  and  administers  was  utterly  unknown  in  ancient 
times.  Therefore  in  the  administration  or  steward- 
ship of  such  property  there  was  no  attempt  to  apply 
the  congregational  principle,  no  eifort  to  express  the 
corporate  will  of  the  congregation  according  to  a  demo- 
cratic or  a  representative  principle  of  government :  on 
the  contrary,  it  was  the  principle  of  sovereign  authority 
which  was  alone  applicable  to  the  case,  administration, 
not  in  virtue  of  a  mandate  of  the  congregation,  but 
in  virtue  of  a  mandate  received  from  above,  from  God 
himself,  the  giver  of  the  spiritual  charisma  which  con- 
stituted at  once  the  authorization  and  the  equipment 
of  God's  steward. 

H.  Sohm  (p.  75)  has  a  long  note  on  the  legal  status  of  Church 
property  before  and  after  Constantine,  which  deserves  more 
attention  than  it  is  likely  to  receive  as  a  foot-note.  In  my 
Monuments  of  the  Early  Church  (pp.  53-61),  where  my  pur- 
pose was  not  to  state  my  own  opinion  but  the  common  consen- 
sus, I  gave  a  sketch  of  the  now  popular  theory  of  De  Eossi,  that 
during  the  ages  of  persecution  the  Church  was  able  to  hold 
its  property  in  corporate  title  under  the  legal  fiction  that  it  was 
one  of  the  poor-man's  burial  societies  (collegia  tenuiorum)  which 
was  the  only  sort  of  private  association  suffered  to  exist  within 
the  Eoman  state.  This  theory  has  been  accepted  by  many 
recent  writers  as  though  it  were  completely  proved ;  and  it  forms 

21 


322  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

the  basis,  or  at  least  the  suggestion,  of  the  many  recent  attempts 
to  explain  both  the  organization  and  the  ritual  of  the  Church 
by  reference  to  the  example  of  various  sorts  of  pagan  societies. 
But  in  the  same  connection  I  quoted  a  significant  passage  from 
an  unpublished  work  by  Duchesne  (Les  Origincs  chrctiennes,  xxiii. 
§  4,  —  lithographed  for  private  circulation)  which  reveals  in 
a  few  significant  words  how  slight  a  basis  of  fact  the  theory 
can   boast. 

Sohm  challenges  the  theory  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  it 
implies  a  notion  of  Church  property  (viz.  as  the  corporate  prop- 
erty of  the  congregation)  which  does  not  accord  with  the 
Christian  view  of  this  subject  which  prevailed  both  before  and 
after  the  time  in  question.  Granting  even  that  the  State  may 
have  regarded  the  Church  property  in  this  light  (as  it  certainly 
did  in  the  time  of  Constantiue),  Sohm  justly  observes  that  this  is 
no  proof  that  the  Christians  themselves  entertained  the  same 
view.  Professor  Sohm's  discussion  of  this  subject,  which  I 
here  reproduce,  is  the  more  worthy  of  attention  because  it  comes 
from  one  of  the  most  distinguished  students  of  the  Eoman 
Law, 

Sohm  remarks  in  the  first  place  that  the  passage  from  Ter- 
tuUian  {Apol.  c.  39)  which  has  been  much  relied  upon  in 
support  of  this  theory,  is  in  reality  unfavorable  to  it.  In  this 
Apology  Tertullian  lays  the  whole  emphasis  of  his  defence  on 
the  religion  and  morality  of  the  Christians,  and  in  the  passage  in 
question  he  makes  little  of  the  formal  bonds  of  organization  in 
comparison  with  the  fellowship  of  a  common  faith  and  moral 
ideal  —  corpus  sumus  de  conscientia  religionis  et  disciplinae 
unitate  et  spe  foedere,  —  not,  therefore,  a  sort  of  burial  society 
or  mutual  benefit  association.  Indeed,  Tertullian  actuall}-  dis- 
claims any  comparison  between  the  Church  and  the  pagan  asso- 
ciations, particularly  the  burial  clubs,  when  he  says  in  effect : 
we  have  only  religious  and  moral  aims  —  none  that  are  secular 
or  commercial,  —  and  "  even  if "  we  have  "  a  kind  of  coffer  " 
(like  that  of  the  clubs),  yet  we  have  no  initiation  fees  or  com- 
pulsory dues,  and  no  common  banquets,  like  those  of  the  collegia 
which  are  provided  out  of  the  common  coffer  ;  on  the  contrary, 
what  we  have  is  expended  solely  for  charity  (the  stipis  collatio 


§20]  CHURCH  PROPERTY  323 

of  the  collegia  was  not  used  for  charity,  cf.  Marquardt,  Bomische 
Staatsverwaltung,  Bd.  3,  2nd  ed.  1885,  p.  142,  n.  4).  The  passage 
(ApoL  c.  39)  reads :  Etiam,  si  quod  arcae  genus  est,  non  de  hon- 
oraria summa  quasi  redemptae  religionis  congregatur.  Modicam 
unusquisque  stipem  menstrua  die  vel  cum  velit  et  si  modo  velit 
et  si  modo  possit,  nam  nemo  compellitur,  sed  sponte  confert. 
Haec  quasi  deposita  pietatis  (not  as  a  corporate  property  held 
for  the  benefit  of  the  members  who  subscribe,  or  for  the  expense 
of  their  common  cultus)  sunt.  Nam  inde  non  epulis  nee  pota- 
culis  nee  ingratiis  voratrinis  dispensatur,  sed  eginis  alendis 
humandisque.  It  is  clear  that  Tertullian  in  giving  this 
description  of  the  Christian  society  had  the  collegia  in  mind, 
especially  the  collegia  tenuiorum,  but  his  purpose  was  to  show 
that  the  Christian  society  lacked  the  distinctive  characteristics 
of  the  secular  associations  ;  and  that  therefore  the  Eoman  laws 
of  association,  which  in  principle  prohibited  all  collegia  and 
made  only  one  general  exception  in  favor  of  the  collegia  fune- 
raticia  vel  tenuiorum,  was  not  applicable  to  the  Church.  There 
is  nothing  here  in  the  way  of  an  argument  that  the  Churches 
might  be  regarded  as  collegia  funeraticia  and  hence  claim  recog- 
nition as  instances  of  the  one  class  of  associations  which  was 
allowed  and  for  which  no  express  license  was  required.  Tertul- 
lian defends  the  Christian  society  from  the  point  of  view  that 
it  is  merely  a  community  of  faith,  without  a  guild-like  organiza- 
tion, consequently  without  guild  property  in  the  proper  sense, 
with  purely  spiritual  aims  (coimus  orantes)  and  purely  spiritual 
discipline  (censura  divina)  ;  and  he  therefore  designates  the 
Church  not  as  a  collegium,  but  preferably  as  a  secta,  —  i.  e.  as  a 
sort  of  philosophic  school,  —  indicating  that  it  is  the  community 
of  conviction,  not  the  formal  bonds  of  organization,  which  holds 
the  Church  together. 

If  Tertullian  himself  disclaims  any  comparison  between  the 
Church  and  the  collegia  tenuiorum,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
the  State  recognized  the  Christian  society  under  this  aspect,  as 
a  legal  corporation  capable  of  holding  property,  and  hence  felt 
itself  bound  to  protect  its  corporate  rights  of  possession.  It 
is  a  significant  fact  that  even  where  Church  property  was  actu- 
ally taken  under  the  protection  of  the  State,  the  action  was 


324  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

prompted,  not  by  regard  for  property  rights,  but  by  considerations 
of  policy,  —  as  in  the  case  of  a  piece  of  ground  disputed  between 
the  Christians  and  the  guild  of  cooks,  where  Alexander  Severus 
(Lampridius,  Alex.  Sev.  c.  49)  intervened  with  the  decision 
that  it  was  better  God  should  be  worshipped  there  than  that 
the  place  be  used  for  a  tavern.  The  two  rescripts  of  Gallienus 
to  the  Egyptian  bishops  (Euseb.  II.  E.  VII.  13)  (from  which 
we  have  to  judge  the  character  of  that  emperor's  edict  of  260) 
practically  gave  the  bishops  the  free  use  of  the  Churches 
and  cemeteries ;  not,  however,  in  a  way  that  explicitly  rec- 
ognized their  property  rights ;  but  merely  by  releasing  the 
magistrates'  attachment  upon  the  property  {airo  rwv  tottcov  tmv 
dpatTKevaifxcov  cnroxoip'^a'coai),  permitting  the  bishops  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  edict  (t?}?  avriypTjipr]';  rr)?  e/i?}?  tw  tvttco 
^pi]adai  Svvaade)  and  to  take  de  facto  possession  {ra  roiv 
KaXovfievcov  KotfirjTrjpicov  aTToXa/M^dveiv  eirLrpeTriov),  without  any 
sort  of  legal  recognition  either  of  the  Christian  Church  as  such 
or  of  its  property  (cf.  Harnack  in  Herzog's  Rcalencykl.  3rd  ed. 
Bd.  3,  p.  828).  The  order  obtained  in  the  year  272  from  the 
Emperor  Aurelian  to  oblige  Paul  of  Samosata,  bishop  of  Anti- 
och,  to  relinquish  the  Church  property  {o2fco<;  rr}?  €KK\r)aia<;) 
after  his  deposition  by  the  Synod  of  Antioch  (269),  was  an 
administrative  act  extra  ordinem,  and  in  fact  an  act  of  impe- 
rial grace.  It  was  only  by  a  supplicatio  addressed  to  the  Em- 
peror that  this  end  could  be  attained,  because  it  involved  an 
extraordinary  favor  which  was  not  within  the  competence  of 
the  provincial  magistrates  (cf.  Mommsen,  Bom.  Staatsrecht,  2nd 
ed.  Bd.  2,  p.  936).  Hence  it  is  that  Eusebius  regards  this  deci- 
sion as  a  sign  of  the  favorable  disposition  of  Aurelian  (^H.  E. 
VII.  30)  :  TOLovTO'i  fxev  ye  TL<i  rjV  to  rijviKciSe  irepl  'qp.m  6 
Avpr)\iav6<i.  So  long  as  Zenobia  was  at  the  helm,  i.  e.  until 
272,  nothing  could  be  effected,  because  a  legal  claim  for  the  res- 
titution of  the  Church  property  did  not  exist. 

Until  the  time  of  Constantine  there  was  no  such  thing  as 
Church  property  de  jure,  but  only  de  facto,  and  it  is  merely  such 
de  facto  property  that  is  referred  to  by  the  edict  of  Maximiuus 
of  the  year  313  (Euseb.  H.  E.  IX.  10 :  oIkiuc  kuI  %(y/3ta  rov  8i- 
KaCov    roiv    ■)^pta-TiavS)v)    and    the    Nicomedian    ordinance    of 


§20]  CHURCH   PROPERTY  325 

Licinius  of  the  same  year  (Lactantius,  de  morte  persec.  c.  48: 
ad  jus  corporis  eorum,  id  est  ecclesiarum,  non  liominum  sin- 
gulorum  pertinentia),  —  cf.  Constantine's  edict  of  the  year 
324  (Euseb.  Vita  Const.  11.  c.  39)  :  airavra  oaa  eKK.\riaCai<i 
irpocnrjKeiv    opdco^    av    (jyaveir). 

Under  Constantine  the  Church  did  undoubtedly  acquire  legal 
possession  of  its  property.  But  the  Eoman  Law  had  only  one 
category  under  which  such  tenure  could  be  classed,  —  that 
of  the  juristic  person.  Indeed,  in  the  first  instance,  only  one 
sort  of  juristic  person  was  recognized,  the  corporation  (cor- 
2ms,  collegium),  for  the  conception  had  not  yet  arisen  of  an 
institution  or  charitable  foundation  (later  known  in  Roman  Law 
as  pia  opera  or  universitas  honoruiii)  capable  of  holding 
property  in  trust  for  an  object  defined  by  the  donor  or 
founder.  For  this  reason  the  Church  property  was  at  first 
defined  as  the  property  of  a  corpus,  that  is,  of  the  Church 
as  a  corporation :  —  cf.  the  ordinance  of  313,  ad  jus  corporis 
eorum;  and  in  the  Codex, lib.  1,  Constitution  de  sacros.  eccl.  (1  :  2), 
which  bestows  the  right  of  inheritance  upon  the  concilium 
catholicae  (ecclesiae).  Echoes  appear  in  later  constitutions 
cited  by  Sohm  (p.  77),  who  refers  to  Gierke,  Geiiossenschaftsrecht, 
Bd.  3,  p.  117,  note  18,  —  a  work  which  I  have  not  been  able 
to  find  in  America,  though  it  has  been  brought  to  the  attention 
of  English  jurists  through  the  translation  of  a  small  section 
of  it  by  Professor  Maitland,  The  Political  Theories  of  the 
Middle  Age,  1900. 

But  it  was  only  in  name  that  Church  property  was  put  upon  the 
same  footing  as  corporate  property  in  the  Roman  sense.  From 
the  characterization  of  the  religious  foundations  of  the  Church 
as  property  of  the  coriius,  no  rights  of  the  congregation  in  such 
property  were  ever  inferred.  In  fact,  the  Roman  Law  found  itself 
obliged  by  the  nature  of  Church  property  to  admit  a  new 
category  of  property,  institutional  (foundational)  property, 
with  the  resultant  distinction  of  two  sorts  of  juristic  persons 
which  is  still  current  in  the  Civil  Law.  In  the  imperial  con- 
stitutions of  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  the  Church  property 
already  appears  as  institutional  property  :  it  is  only  rarely  and 
by  way  of  reminiscence  that  the  corpus,  consortium,  etc.  are 


326  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

named  as  the  subject  of  possession ;  as  a  general  rule  the  subject 
expressly  named  is  a  particular  church  (i.  e.  the  building* 
regarded  as  the  visible  manifestation  of  the  ecclesiastical  insti- 
tution), the  aedes  sacra,  the  domus  divinae,  domus  venerabilis, 
monasteria,  xenotropliia,  ptochotrophia,  etc.  (cf.  Gierke,  op.  cit. 
Bd.  3,  p.  116,  n.  15).  Beside  this  legal  conception  there  still 
persisted  the  primitive  and  purely  religious  idea,  which  regarded 
the  Church  property  as  really  the  property  of  God  or  Christ,  — 
or  of  the  saints,  in  the  sense  that  the  property  of  the  saints 
is  in  truth  God's  property  (Augustine,  contra  Faust,  xx.  21 : 
nuUi  martyrum,  sed  ipso  deo  martyrum,  quamvis  in  memoriis 
martyrum  constituamus  altaria).  This  religious  conception 
explains  the  administration  of  Church  property  by  the  bishop 
as  God's  priest,  not  by  the  congregation  or  its  representatives ; 
and  it  profoundly  influenced  the  legal  treatment  of  the  sub- 
ject throughout  the  Midale  Ages.  The  thought  which  remains 
fundamental  throughout  the  whole  development  is  this,  that 
Church  property  is  designed  to  serve,  not  the  purpose  of 
any  man,  nor  of  any  human  society  (the  congregation  for  exam- 
ple), but  God's  purpose  ;  and  that  therefore  it  is  appropriately 
held,  not  as  corporation  property  (property  belonging  in  common 
to  the  members  of  a  society),  but  as  institutional  property 
(property  held  in  trust  for  predetermined  ends  which  it  is  not 
within  the  competence  of  the  trustees  to  alter).  This  is  the 
idea  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  common-law  distinction 
to-day.  For  not  only  did  the  peculiar  nature  of  Church  property 
lead  to  the  distinction  of  the  second  juristic  jjerson  in  Eoman 
Law,  but  it  still  more  profoundly  affected  the  conceptions  of  the 
common  law.  The  earliest  notion  of  a  corporation  in  English 
law  was  derived  from  the  parish  vestry,  which  was  assumed  to 
hold  property  as  trustee  for  the  saint  to  whom  the  church 
was  dedicated  and  to  whom  the  whole  property  really  belonged. 
Corporation  law  in  England  has  ever  preserved  traces  of  this 
origin,  and  statutory  enactments  in  America  show  an  increas- 
ing tendency  to  assimilate  the  business  corporation  to  the 
norm  of  the  religious  or  charitable  foundation,  —  to  regard  the 
property  of  all  corporations  as  though  it  legally  belonged,  not 
directly  to  the  stock-holders,  but  to  the  officers  and  directors  (the 


§20]  CHURCH  PROPERTY  327 

"  corporation  "  in  the  modern  sense),  who  are  supposed  to  hold 
it  as  it  were  in  trusteeship  for  the  ends  specified  in  the  char- 
ter of  incorporation. 

We  have  to  consider  next  the  fact  that  the  recep- 
tion of  the  gifts  of  the  Church  empowers  the  receiver 
to  partake  of  them  for  himself.  The  offerings  of 
the  Church  have  a  three-fold  purpose:  (1)  use  at  the 
Eucharistic  feast  (particularly  as  combined  with  the 
agape)  ;^^  (2)  distribution  to  the  poor ;  ^^  (3)  support 
of  the  teaching  office,  —  the  teacher  by  profession  is 
encouraged  to  rely  upon  the  offerings  of  the  disciples.^^ 
In  all  three  cases  the  Church  property  is  spent /or  God. 
The  gift  to  the  poor  is  a  gift  to  God/^  And  such  is 
equally  the  case  when  the  gift  is  made  to  the  teacher 
of  the  Gospel.-^^     The  honor  rendered  to  the  teaching 

16  See  note  2. 

16  See  notes  3  &  4. 

1^  See  above,  p.  247.  The  clergy  succeeded  in  this  respect  to  the 
position  of  the  teacher,  cf.  note  4,  above,  and  below,  note  I.  Still,  the 
clergy  (bishops  and  deacons)  did  not  every  where  acquire,  like  the  teach- 
ers, the  right  to  be  supported  by  the  congregation,  —  cf.  Achelis,  Canon. 
Hippohjti,  in  Texte  u.  Unlers.  Bd.  G,  Heft  4,  p.  192. 

18  Cf.  2  Cor.  9  :  11-13,  —  "the  ministration  of  this  service  (the  collec- 
tion for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem)  beareth  interest  through  many 
thanksgivings  unto  God."  Heb.  13  :  16,  —  "to  do  good  and  to  commu- 
nicate forget  not,  for  with  such  sacrifices  God  is  well  pleased."  Widows 
and  the  needy  were  hence  called  "  God's  altar  "  (Ova-iaaTrjpiov  6eov),  Poly- 
carp,  Philip.  4:3;  Apost.  Const.  II.  c.  26;  III.  c.  6;  IV.  c.  3.  Related  to 
this  is  the  notion  that  a  gift  to  the  poor  is  a  ransom  for  sin  :  —  Didache, 
iv.  6  ;  Barnabas,  19  :  20;  2  Clem.  16  :  4;  Apost.  Church  Order,  c.  13;  Apost. 
Const.  VII.  c.  12.  The  bishop,  therefore,  receives  the  gifts  as  "God's 
mediator,"  Apost.  Const.  II.  c.  35.  Ildfling,  Lehre  von  Opfer,  1851,  pp. 
24,  28. 

19  The  support  which  St.  Paul  receives  from  the  Philippians  is  "a 
sacrifice  well-pleasing  to  God,"  Phil.  4  :  18.  The  first-fruits  are  regarded 
as  offered  to  God  :  —  Irenaeus,  adv.  haer.  IV.  29  :  5,  dominus  noster  .  .  . 
SLiis  discipulis  dans  consilium,  primitias  deo  ofEere  ex  suis  creaturis. 
They  were  given  to  the  prophet  or  to  the  poor,  note  4.  Later  the  Church 
property  was  used  for  the  support  of  the  poor  and  the  clergy. 


328  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

office  consists  in  this,  that  he  has  a  share  in  God's 
property,  that  a  gift  to  him  is  equivalent  to  a  gift  to 
God,  and  that  he  is  thus  recognized  in  this  respect 
as  God's  deputy .^"^  The  granting  of  a  share  in  God's 
property  is  the  highest  outward  honor  which  the 
Church  has  to  give.  Hence  the  frequent  use  of  the 
word  "  honor  "  in  early  Christian  literature  as  though 
it  had  no  other  connotation  than  a  share  in  the  offer- 
ings —  see  below,  note  I.  This  honor  belongs  to  the 
poor,  who  in  this  sense  are  accounted  among  the  first 
members  of  the  community,  —  the  "  riches  of  the 
Church,"  as  St.  Lawrence  called  them.  It  belongs 
likewise  to  the  teacher  of  the  Gospel.  We  may  see 
in  this  another  reason  why  it  is  the  part  of  the  gifted 
teacher  to  receive  the  offerings  at  the  Eucharist,  namely, 
because  he  is  entitled  to  make  use  of  them  in  part  for 
himself,  a  gift  to  him  being  equivalent  to  a  gift  to  God. 
We  see  that  in  principle  the  reception  of  the  offerings 
at  the  Eucharist  implies  the  right  of  the  receiver  to 
a  share  in  them.  In  other  words :  whoever  celebrates 
the  Eucharist  has  the  position  of  a  priest  and  deputy 
of  God  —  i.  e.  the  position  of  a  teacher  of  the  Gospel. 

I.  On  the  words  "  honor"  "  to  honor,"  "  honored,"  as  used  to 
denote  a  share  of  the  Church  offerings.  The  earliest  passage 
in  which  this  usage  occurs  outside  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  — 

"^^  The  prophets  receive  the  first-fruits,  for  they  are  "your  high- 
priests";  the  bishop  receives  the  gifts  as  "  God's  priest,"  —  above,  note 
11.  Prophets  and  teachers  are  "the  honored  (persons)  "  in  the  Church; 
bishops  and  deacons  are  to  be  honored  like  them,  because  they  perform 
the  ministry  of  prophets  and  teachers,  Dklache,  xv.  1  :  2.  The  "lionor" 
is  priestly  honor  (cf .  Heb.  5  :  4,  5,  Ti]v  Ti.y.r]v  .  .  .  yfUT]6rjvat  dpxiepea),  and 
priestly  honor  belongs  in  principle  only  to  an  incumbent  of  the  teaching 
office  —  hence  the  injunction  that  bishops  and  deacons  shall  be  honored 
as  "prophets  and  teachers"  :  they  too  shall  be  accorded  priestly  honor. 
The  priestly  honor  finds  its  outward  expression  in  the  reception  of  the 
offerings,  cf.  note  I. 


§20]  CHURCH  PROPERTY  329 

consequently  the  earliest  passage  whose  date  can  be  securely 
determined  —  is  1  Clem,  ad  Cor.  44  :  6,  the  Corinthians  have 
displaced  certain  bishops  "  from  the  office  in  which  they  were 
blamelessly  honored  "  (e'/c  t?)?  afxe/xTTToo^  avTol<;  rerLfji'qfjievrj'i  Xet- 
Tovp'yia'i).  Cf.  Gebhardt  and  Harnack's  ed.  Lightfoot,  against 
the  testimony  of  all  the  authorities,  prefers  to  substitute  t€T7]- 
p7]fjL€vi]<i  ("  the  office  which  they  blamelessly  respected  ").  The 
sentence  next  but  one  preceding  this  affirms  that  it  would  be  no 
small  sin  to  cast  out  "  those  that  had  blamelessly  and  holily 
offered  the  gifts  of  the  bishop's  office."  The  "  blameless  offering 
of  the  gifts,"  and  the  "office  in  which  they  were  blame- 
lessly honored,"  must  signify  the  same  thing, — i.  e.  the  reception 
of  the  gifts  at  the  Eucharist,  and  the  "offering"  and  adminis- 
tering which  was  implied  in  this  (see  note  3),  is  the  "  honor  " 
which  is  associated  with  the  bishop's  office.  Corresponding 
to  this  we  have  the  injunction  in  1  Tim.  5  :  17,  18,  "  Let  the 
diligently  presiding  elders  be  accounted  worthy  of  double  lionor, 
especially  those  who  labor  in  the  word  and  in  teaching. 
For  the  Scripture  saith,  Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  when 
he  treadeth  out  the  corn.  And,  The  laborer  is  worth}^  of  his 
hire.  "  What  is  meant  is,  that  such  elders  shall  receive  a  double 
portion  of  the  offerings,  —  therein  consists  the  "  double  honor," 
Holtzmann,  Fastoralbr.  p.  213.  Cf.  Apost.  Const.  II.  c.  28  (the 
passage  corresponds  with  the  Didashalia,  and  therefore  belongs 
to  the  third  century)  :  at  a  love-feast  the  bishop's  portion  ("  i.  e. 
the  first-fruits  ")  must  first  be  set  aside  for  him,  even  if  he  be 
not  present,  "  for  the  honor  (et?  ri/x-qv)  of  God,  who  hath  be- 
stowed upon  him  the  priesthood."  The  widows  are  to  receive 
a  single  portion,  and  the  deacons  a  double  one  "  in  honor  (et? 
7epa<?)  of  Christ."  "  If  any  one  wish  to  honor  {rifiav)  the  pres- 
byters, let  him  give  them  a  double  portion  as  to  the  deacons ; 
for  they  ought  to  be  honored  (riixaaOaL)  as  apostles:  ...  let 
the  laity,  then,  render  by  their  gifts  the  appropriate  honor  due 
to  each  rank."  We  find  the  same  usage  presented  with  equal 
clearness  in  Source  A  of  the  Apost.  Church  Order  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century  (Harnack,  Texte  u.  Unters.  II.  5, 
p.  14)  :  "  The  presbyters  on  the  right  shall  take  care  for  the 
bishops  at  the  altar,  in  order  that  (the  bishops)  ri/x^aoxn  koL 


330.  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

ivTifirjOaxTLv,  ek  o  av  Ser/"  —  that  is,  with  the  assistance  of  the 
presbyters,  the  bishops  receive  the  gifts  at  the  altar,  so  that 
they  (the  bishops)  may  both  give  honor  (that  is,  distribute  the 
gifts  to  those  to  whom  they  are  due,  especially  to  the  poor),  and 
themselves  receive  honor,  "  so  far  as  it  may  be  necessary  "  (that 
is,  take  such  a  share  of  the  offerings  as  is  required  for  their 
own  support),  —  cf.  Harnack's  commentary  on  the  passage. 
The  reception  of  the  offerings  is  "  honor  "  ])ar  excellence.  Com- 
pare finally  Apost.  Church  Order,  c.  12  (about  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth  century,  —  text  in  Harnack's  ed.  of  Didache)  :  "Thou 
shalt  honor  him  (the  teacher  of  the  Gospel)  according  to  thine 
ability,  from  thy  sweat  and  from  the  labor  of  thy  hands,  .  .  . 
for  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,  and  thou  shalt  not  muzzle 
the  ox  that  treadeth  out  the  corn."  Also  the  word  honor  as 
it  is  used  in  1  Clem.  1 : 3  ("  rendering  unto  the  elders  who  are 
among  you  the  honor  which  is  their  due  ")  and  c.  21 : 6  ("  let 
us  honor  the  elders  ")  must  refer  in  part  at  least  to  the  privi- 
lege which  the  elders  (the  older  men  of  the  community)  enjoyed 
in  connection  with  the  offering  of  the  gifts  at  the  Eucharist :  it 
is  precisely  with  regard  to  this  point  (the  position  of  honor 
which  ought  to  be  accorded  the  irpea^vTepoi  at  the  Eucharist) 
that  St.  Clement  finds  occasion  to  blame  the  Corinthians  (cc. 
44,54,57).     Cf.  §§21,  23. 

We  see  from  the  foregoing  that  the  Eucharistic  cele- 
bration called  for  a  gifted  teacher,  not  only  to  offer 
the  thanksgiving  prayer,  but  to  receive  and  admin- 
ister the  Church  property.  Hence  the  presidency  at 
the  Eucharist  fell  in  the  first  place  to  an  apostle,  or 
prophet,  or  to  some  person  who  was  honored  in  the 
community  as  a  gifted  teacher  of  the  Gospel.  But  it 
was  not  in  every  assembly,  not  even  in  every  principal 
assembly,  that  such  a  teacher  was  to  be  found.  The 
teaching  charisma  was  rare  in  Christendom,  —  hence 
the  high  regard  in  which  it  was  held.  To  7nake  such 
a  teacher  was  not  within    the  competence  of  the  as- 


§21]  BISHOPS  331 

sembly:  neither  election,  ordination,  nor  any  sort  of 
commission  from  the  part  of  the  assembly  could  confer 
the  apostolic  gift  of  teaching;  it  was  the  gift  of  God, 
and  it  denoted  a  divine  commission.  Hence  the  ques- 
tion arises,  who  shall  celebrate  the  Eucharist  and 
administer  the  Church  property  when  there  is  no 
apostle,  prophet,  or  teacher  in  the  assembly,  no  one 
who  is  called  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  as  his 
life  profession  ? 

The  Eucharist  mig-ht  be  celebrated  wherever  there 
was  a  Church  of  the  disciples,  that  is,  wherever  two  or 
three  were  gathered  together :  it  could  not  and  need 
not  be  deferred  for  lack  of  a  gifted  teacher.  Add  to 
this  the  fact  that  the  distribution  of  the  g-ifts,  which 
was  associated  at  least  with  the  principal  Eucharistic 
assembly,  constituted  a  regularly  recurring  local  interest 
which  was  of  too  pressing  and  practical  a  character  to 
admit  of  postponement.  This  presents  the  sphere  in 
which  we  find  the  conditions  which  first  prompted  the 
development  of  a  local  organization,  the  congregational 
organization  as  we  now  understand  it.  This  local  or- 
ganization found  its  first  expression  in  the  episcopal 
office. 

§  21,  BISHOPS  1 

To  supply  the  defect  of  charismatic  teachers,  bishops 
were  elected,  whose  distinctive  function  it  was  to  preside 
at  the  Eucharist  and  administer  the  Church  property. 
The  earliest  mention  of  such  officers  we  find  in  Phil.  1 : 
1,  —  St.  Paul  addresses  the  saints  which  art  at  Philippi 
"  with  bishops  and  deacons."    The  contents  of  the  epistle, 

1  Much  of  the  material  of  this  section  is  drawn  from  Sohtn,  §  9,  — 
though  with  some  important  diiierences  of  view. 


ry 


332  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

in  which  St.  Paul  thanks  the  Philippians  for  the  gifts 
he  had  received  from  them  at  various  times  (4  :  10-19), 
make  it  seem  likely  that  the  "  bishops  and  deacons  "  are 
here  specially  noticed  in  view  of  the  offerings  which  they 
were  instrumental  in  sending  the  Apostle ;  ^  and  that 
therefore  the  bishops  and  deacons  at  Philippi  were  re- 
sponsible for  the  distribution  of  the  Eucharistic  gifts, 
and  consequently  for  the  administration  of  the  Eucharist. 
The  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  at  the  end  of 
the  first  century  confidently  attributes  the  establishment 
of  bishops  and  deacons  to  the  Apostles.  In  this  source 
we  find  election  to  the  episcopal  office  expressly  empha- 
sized, and  the  essence  of  the  episcopate  is  made  to  consist 
in  the  "  offering  of  the  gifts."  ^     At  the  beginning  of 

■^  It  was  Harnack  who  first  called  attention  to  this,  first  in  his  ed.  of 
Hatch's  work,  p.  233,  and  afterwards  in  the  Theol.  Lit.-Zeitung,  1889, 
p.  419.  In  the  latter  place  he  gives  an  apt  translation  of  Phil.  1 :  8,  "I 
thank  my  God  for  your  remembrance  of  me  of  every  sort "  (eVi  naa-r]  rfj 
ixveia  vfiiov),  thereby  finding  a  reference  at  the  very  beginning  of  the 
letter  to  the  gift  of  money  which  the  Apostle  had  received  from  the 
Philippian  Chm'ch,  which  is  afterwards  mentioned  expressly  in  4  :  10  sqq. 

3  1  Cle7?i.  44  :  3,  4,  —  "  Those  therefore  who  were  appointed  by  them 
(the  Apostles),  or  afterwards  by  other  men  of  repute  with  the  consent 
of  the  whole  Church,  and  have  administered  unblamably  to  the  flock  of 
Christ,  .  .  .  — these  men  we  consider  to  be  unjustly  thrust  out  from 
their  ministrations.  For  it  will  be  no  light  sin  for  us,  if  we  thrust  out 
those  who  have  offered  the  gifts  of  the  bishop's  office  unblamably  and 
holily."  With  this  passage,  the  full  importance  of  which  has  only 
recently  been  recognized,  the  first  two  verses  of  c.  44  are  closely  related  : 
"The  Apostles  knew  beforehand"  that  there  woi;ld  be  "strife  over  the 
name  of  the  bishop's  office  " ;  in  consequence  of  this  foreknowledge  "  they 
appointed  the  aforesaid"  (c.  42)  first  converts  (now  dead)  as  bishops 
and  deacons,  koI  ixera^v  entvofirjv  eSooKav,  "  in  order  that,  if  these  should 
fall  asleep,  other  approved  men  might  succeed  to  their  ministration." 
The  word  emvofirjv,  which  is  read  in  the  best  manuscripts,  is  generally 
supposed  to  be  meaningless  here,  —  cf.  Lightfoot,  in  loc,  who  pi'oposes 
the  purely  conjectural  emendation  tTri^iovTjv.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  is  a  distribution,  and  Sohm  (p.  82, 
n.  4)  urges  that  this  gives  a  completely  satisfactory  sense.  The  sugges- 
tion is  certainly  a  forcible  one,  and  with  the  appreciation  we  have  already 


§  21]  BISHOPS  333 

the  second  century  the  Didache  urges  it  already  as  the 
duty  of  the  congregation  to  "  elect  bishops  and  deacons  "  ; 
and  here  too  the  essential  function  of  the  office  appears 
to  be  the  administration  of  the  Eucharist  —  and  conse- 
quently of  the  gifts.* 

On  the  other  hand,  neither  bishops,  deacons,  nor  elders 
are  mentioned  in  St.  Paul's  epistles  to  the  Corinthians, 
Romans,  and  Galatians,  although  some  reference  to 
such  officers,  if  they  existed  in  these  Churches,  would 
seem  to  be  pertinent  to  the  subjects  discussed,  especially 
in  1  Cor.  12  sqq.  and  2  Cor.  9. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  episcopal  organization  1  / 
was  not  among  the  earliest  institutions  of  Christianity,  [ 
but  that  it  nevertheless  originated  in  apostolic  times.      / 
It  was  already  established  at  Philippi  about  the  year  60.  | 
The  Epistle  of  Clement  shows  that  at  the  end  of  the 

attained  of  the  character  of  the  bishop's  office,  it  seems  as  though  no 
more  appropriate  word  could  be  used  in  this  place.  Sohm  interprets  the 
passage  as  follows :  the  Apostles  appoint  their  first  converts  as  bishops 
and  deacons  and  "  in  the  mean  time  "  (ixera^v,  i.  e.  till  their  death,  so 
long  as  they  live,  for  the  whole  interval  before  others  succeed  them)  they 
gave  (to  them  the)  distribution,  in  order  that  this  ministration,  being  es- 
tablished in  their  office,  might  be  passed  on  to  other  approved  men  upon 
tlieir  demise.  That  is  to  say:  because  the  Apostles  foresaw  a  strife  over 
the  fniaKOTrfj,  they  gave  the  enivonTj  to  the  appointed  bishops  and  deacons 
(and  likewise  to  their  successors) /or  their  life-time.  Through  the  apostolic 
grant  of  the  "  distribution  "  to  these  officers  the  strife  over  the  episcopate 
is  settled. 

*  Didache,  xv.  1,  "  Therefoi'e  (ovv)  elect  for  yourselves  bishops  and 
deacons  worthy  of  the  Lord."  Sohm  very  reasonably  insists  that  the 
ovv  refers  to  the  preceding  chapter  (xiv),  where  the  subject  is  the  weekly 
Eucharist,  and  the  necessity  is  twice  urged  that  the  "  sacrifice  "  of  the 
assembly  must  "be  pure."  The  injunction  to  elect  bishops  and  deacons 
immediately  follows  this  and  is  introduced  by  a  "therefore":  —  from 
the  necessity  of  celebrating  the  Eucharistic  feast,  and  of  celebrating  it 
duly,  so  that  the  "  offering  may  be  pure,"  follows  the  duty  of  electing 
bishops  and  deacons  "  worthy  of  the  Lord."  The  function  of  bishops 
and  deacons  consists  in  the  admiinstration  of  the  Eucharist.  So  Hatch 
in  Harnack's  Dogmengesch.  2nd  ed.  Bd.  1,  p.  182,  note  1. 


334  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

century  it  was  regarded  both  at  Rome  and  at  Corinth  as 
an  ancient  institution,  and  the  Acts  and  Pastoral  Epistles 
prove  its  dissemination  in  the  East.  So  we  have  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  office  of  bishop  was  established,  at 
least  in  a  considerable  number  of  Churches,  about  the 
middle  of  the  first  century.  The  practical  motives  we 
have  already  considered  suffice  to  account  for  its  es- 
tablishment, while  on  the  other  hand  the  continued 
ministry  of  charismatic  teachers  serves  to  explain  the 
fact  that  this  substitutionary  organization  was  not  every- 
where introduced  at  the  same  time.  These  two  systems 
of  organization  might  exist  contemporaneously  in 
Christendom  (one  in  one  Church  and  one  in  another) 
without  any  infraction  of  the  ideal  of  uniformity  which 
was  cherished  by  the  early  Christians.  There  was  not,  in 
fact,  any  great  difference  in  point  of  form  between  these 
two  sorts  of  Church  organization.  It  seems  probable 
that  until  the  second  century  such  apostolic  teachers  as 
happened  to  be  resident  in  a  particular  community  did 
not  assume  the  name  of  bishop,  for  their  proper  office 
and  title  was  a  higher  one.  These  two  sorts  of  officers 
were  mutually  exclusive.  But,  nevertheless,  they  per- 
formed to  a  considerable  extent  the  same  functions, 
so  far  as  concerned  the  Eucharist  and  the  administration 
of  Church  property.  Any  individual  congregation  might 
do  without  charismatically  gifted  teachers,  or  it  might 
do  without  bishops,  but  it  could  not  do  without  a  presi- 
dent of  the  Eucharistic  assembly  and  the  regular  admin- 
istration of  the  gifts.  The  Eucharist  remaining  the 
same,  the/or??!  of  government  was  the  same,  whatever 
might  be  the  individual  qualifications  of  the  officers.^ 

5  It  is  necessary  to  insist  upon  this  point,  because  a  number  of  recent 
German  historians  have  advanced  the  notion  that  we  cannot  find  in 
primitive  Christianity  a  single  type  of  organization,  but  must  be  content 


§  21]  BISHOPS  335 

How  different  all  this  is  from  the  now  prevalent 
theory,  it  need  hardly  be  pointed  out.  The  prevalent 
theory  regards  the  primitive  bishop  as  an  administra- 
tive officer  pure  and  simple.  Hatch  represents  that 
as  president  of  the  presbyteral  council  he  exercised  a 
judicial  administration,  while  as  bishop  he  was  merely 
a  treasurer  with  executive  powers.  Harnack  recog- 
nizes the  close  relation  of  the  bishop  to  the  Eucharist, 
and  regards  him  as  the  general  administrator  of  the 
cultus.  But  according  to  the  prevalent  view  all  these 
functions  are  regarded  as  purely  administrative,  and 
the  whole  episcopal  and  presbyteral  organization  (or 
both  of  them,  if  they  are  supposed  to  be  distinct)  is 
regarded  as  the  express  opposite  both  in  character  and 
function  of  the  charismatic  organization  of  apostles, 
prophets,  and  teachers.  The  latter  is  occupied  solely 
with  teaching  (the  pastoral  function,  the  cure  of  souls) ; 
the  former  solely  with  administration  (discipline,  finan- 
cial economy,  and  superintendence  of  the  liturgy).  Both 
of  these  organizations  are  supposed  to  have  existed  side 
by  side  in  the  same  congregations,  and  it  is  explained 

to  recognize  many  variou.s  types.  The  latest  and  most  extreme  exponent 
of  this  view  is  Reville  {Etudes  sur  les  Origines  de  VEpiscopal,  1894).  This 
is  an  easy  way  to  gire  up  the  vexed  and  diflBcult  problem  of  early  Church 
organization,  but  it  is  no  solution.  The  whole  trend  of  our  investiga- 
tion hitherto  excludes  the  notion  that  diversity  of  Church  order  —  even 
of  outward  order  —  could  have  been  tolerated  by  primitive  Christianity. 
Actual  diversities  there  were,  of  course,  and  they  were  to  be  expected 
where  there  was  no  rigidly  established  legal  form.  But  this  is  not  the 
real  question.  The  question  is  rather,  whether  diSerences  hi  principle 
were  tolerated,  so  that  e.  g.  one  part  of  the  Church  might  have  a  pres- 
byteral organization,  in  imitation  of  the  synagogue,  another  an  episcopal, 
or  what  not,  and  all  frankly  recognized  as  equally  legitimate  manifesta- 
tions of  Church  order.  This  question  must  be  answered  in  the  negative. 
We  have  seen  that  the  order  of  the  Church  is  founded  upon  God's  word 
and  is  an  exclusive  order :  there  can  be  nothing  accidental  about  it,  noth- 
ing which  depends  upon  human  preference  or  whim.     Cf.  Sohm,  p.  105. 


336  .       THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

that  the  increasing  importance  of  the  financial  adminis- 
tration so  increased  the  bishop's  power  and  importance 
that  he  was  able  to  absorb  the  function  of  teaching 
(which  was  originally  foreign  to  his  office,  if  not 
incompatible)  and  thus  gradually  to  eliminate  the 
charismatic  ministry. 

We  are  accustomed  to  think  of  teaching  and  adminis- 
tration as  essential  opposites,  and  it  is  very  natural 
for  us  to  attribute  our  conception  to  the  primitive  age 
and  interpret  the  early  institutions  in  accordance  with 
this  distinction.  But  from  our  whole  study  of  the 
teaching  office  (particularly  §§  15  and  16)  we  see  that 
this  is  not  an  historical  procedure.  It  might  be  neces- 
sary to  suppose  that  these  two  sorts  of  organization 
(which  were  certainly  very  different  in  character) 
performed  different,  or  even  opposite,  functions,  if  it 
were  true  that  they  both  existed  side  by  side  in  the 
same  community.  But  of  this  there  is  no  proof,  and 
the  very  text  {Didache,  xv.  1,  —  see  note  J,  below) 
which  furnished  the  suggestion  for  this  whole  theory 
has  been  wrested  by  Sohm  from  his  antagonists  and 
employed  —  with  manifest  right,  I  think  —  as  the 
prime  proof  of  his  contention. 

The  view  presented  briefly  in  the  last  section  repre- 
sents that  the  presidency  of  the  Eucharist  implied  the 
highest  honor  in  the  assembly,  since  he  who  occupied 
this  position  was  regarded  as  Christ's  representative, 
sitting  in  his  place.  But  the  highest  honor  in  the 
Church  belonged  to  the  teacher  of  the  Gospel.  There- 
fore, the  most  honored  teacher  in  the  assembly  must  be 
selected  as  president  of  the  Eucharist :  and  vice  versa, 
he  who  occupies  this  position  must  be  regarded  as  the 
highest  teacher  in  the  assembly.  The  functions  asso- 
ciated with  the  presidency  of  the  Eucharist  combine  to 


§  21]  BISHOPS  337 

support  this  conclusion  :  a  teacher  was  required  to  offer 
the  Eucharistic  prayer ;  and  no  less  to  administer  the 
gifts,  which  were  God's  property  and  could  only  be 
administered  in  his  name  and  by  one  who  acted  in  his 
stead.  Hence  the  bishop  in  presiding  over  the  Eucha- 
rist and  the  Church  property  did  not  act  merely  as  a 
cultus-officer,  or  as  a  treasurer,  but  as  incumbent  of  the 
highest  office,  the  office  of  teacher.  The  functions  which 
the  bishop  exercised  in  connection  with  the  Eucharist, 
which  from  first  to  last  constituted  the  core  of  his 
office,  are  not  to  be  contrasted  with  the  teaching  func- 
tion, but  rather  to  be  regarded  as  a  special  application 
of  it.  The  very  fact  that  the  bishop  appears  as  the  ad- 
ministrator of  the  Eucharist  and  of  the  Church  property 
is  proof  that  he  was  not  regarded  as  holding  a  mere 
administrative  office,  but  the  office  of  teacher,  which 
must  from  the  first  have  been  associated  with  the 
episcopate. 

The  bishop  as  such  is  neither  prophet  nor  teacher. 
When,  therefore,  there  appears  in  the  community  a 
prophet,  one  who  is  equipped  with  the  apostolic  gift  of 
teaching ;  the  bishop  gives  place  to  him  :  it  is  then  the 
prophet,  not  the  bishop,  that  celebrates  the  Eucharist 
and  administers  the  gifts.^  But,  what  if  no  such  gifted 
teacher  is  present  ?  This  is  precisely  the  case  which 
occasioned  the  development  of  the  bishop's  office.  Then 
it  is  the  bishop  who  must  administer  the  Eucharist  and  i 
the  Church  property  in  place  of  the  prophet  and  teacher.  ' 
This  is  what  is  affirmed  by  the  celebrated  passage  of  the 
Didache,  where  it  is  enjoined  that  bishops  and  deacons 
shall  be  honored  "  with  the  prophets  and  teachers," 
because  they  render  the  assembly  "  the  service  of  the 
prophets  and  teachers."     This  refers  precisely  to  the 

6  Cf.  Didache,  x.  7  with  xv.  1. 
22 


338  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

service  of  the  bishops  and  deacons  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Eucharist  and  the  Church  property.  The 
"  service  of  the  prophets  and  teachers "  which  the 
Didache  has  in  mind,  is  not  some  office  of  instruction, 
but  the  administrative  function  at  the  Eucharist,  which 
constituted  one  side  of  their  activity  as  teachers.  The 
Didache  shows  that  this  function  belonged  in  the  first 
instance  to  the  prophets  and  teachers,  and  in  the  second 
instance  to  the  bishops  and  deacons.  It  follows  from 
this  that  the  Didache,  in  classing  the  bishops  with 
the  prophets  and  teachers,  does  not  intend  to  ascribe 
to  them  a  new  character  (as  has  been  hitherto  sup- 
posed), viz.  the  character  of  teachers,  which  did  not 
originally  belong  to  their  office  ;  but  it  declares  that 
the  functions  of  administration  at  the  Eucharist,  i.  e. 
the  original  functions  of  the  bishop's  office,  are  essen- 
tially teaching  functions,  which  would  otherwise  be 
performed  by  the  prophets  and  teachers.  That  is  the 
primitive  conception.  The  name  bishop  itself  does  not 
indicate  an  office  merely  of  administration,  but  rather 
the  cure  of  souls.'^    Unless  the  bishop  fulfilled  such  func- 

■^  Sohm  (p.  87,  n.  13)  remarks  upon  the  futility  of  Hatch's  attempt  to 
derive  the  name  "  bishop  "  (in  the  sense  of  officer  of  finance)  from  the 
civic  or  guild  organization  of  the  Greeks.  The  secular  use  of  the  word 
is  exceedingly  vague  and  general  —  it  might  have  as  many  applications 
as  the  word  inspector  or  superintendent  has  with  us.  It  is  only  the 
Christian  use  of  the  word  that  can  give  us  reliable  information  as  to  the 
meaning  which  the  early  Church  attached  to  the  name  bishop,  and  here 
it  is  perfectly  evident  that  inlcTKOTTos  is  used  in  the  sense  of  caretaker,  one 
who  is  engaged  in  the  cure  of  souls,  watching  over  men  —  substantially 
with  the  same  meaning  as  pastor.  Cf.  1  Pet.  2  :  25,  where  Christ  himself 
is  spoken  of  as  TroLyiffv  koX  fnla-Koiros  (surely  not  treasurer!)  "of  your 
souls."  Acts  20 :  28,  where  the  bishops  are  exhorted  "  to  shepherd 
(noiuaivfiv)  the  flock  of  God,"  —  which  surely  indicates  a  feeding  with 
God's  word  as  a  part  of  their  pastoral  activity.  Ignatius  {Magnes.  3  :  1) 
speaks  of  "  God  .  .  .  bishop  of  all  "  -rthat  is,  naturally,  of  all  men:  not, 
as  Hatch  (Organization,  p.  42)  assumes,  of  all  things.  Cf.  the  rest  of 
Sohm's  note. 


§  21]  BISHOPS  339 

tions,  it  would  be  hard  to  account  for  the  term  "  pas- 
tor" which  was  early  applied  to  him.^  The  pastoral 
and  teaching  functions  fell  more  and  more  into  the 
hands  of  the  bishop  as  the  charismatic  ministry  became 
rarer.  But  the  fact  that  such  functions  fell  to  him  at 
all,  must  remain  a  riddle  so  long  as  we  suppose  that 
his  office  was  originally  in  its  functions  antipodal  to 
the  teaching  office. 

J.  Sohm's  important  note  on  pp.  85,  86,  I  render  here 
literally  and  entire. 

Biclache,  xv.  1,  "  Elect  for  yourselves,  therefore  \i.  e.  for  the 
administration  of  the  Eucharist,  in  order  that  your  sacrifice 
may  be  pure],  bishops  and  deacons  worthy  of  the  Lord,  men 
who  are  meek,  and  not  lovers  of  money,  and  true  and  ap- 
proved " ;  v^ilv  'yap  XeiTOvpyovcri,  koI  avrol  rrjv  XetTovpjiav 
TOiv  7rpo(f>7]Tcov  KoX  BiSaaKciXfou  ("  for  they  too  perform  for  you 
the  service  of  the  prophets  and  teachers").  The  last  clause 
states  the  reason  for  demanding  the  aforesaid  qualities  in 
the  bishops  and  deacons,  —  hence  the  rydp.  The  reason  lies 
in  the  function  of  the  office,  the  Xecrovpryta.  What  is  the 
XetTovpyia  of  the  bishops  and  deacons  ?  It  is  the  same  as 
that  of  the  prophets  and  teachers,  but  in  such  wise  that  the 
bishops  and  deacons  appear  only  in  the  second  rank  —  as  sub- 
stitutes for  those  who  have  a  clearer  vocation,  —  hence  the 
Kal  avToi,  "they  too."  What  Xeirovpyia  of  the  prophets  and 
teachers  is  here  contemplated  ?  Is  it  the  ministry  of  teaching 
in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  that  is  to  say,  a  function  which 
is  regarded  as  superadded  to  the  proper  episcopal  function  of 
administering  the  Eucharist  and  the  Church  property  (as  the 
imiversally  prevalent  view  would  have  it)  ?  Certainly  not. 
It  would  be  indeed  an  extraordinary  piece  of  argumentation, 
to  say :  bishops  and  deacons  must  have  these  qualifications, 
for   (besides   their   proper   vocation  and   office,  which  would 

8  The  bishops  are  apparently  .indicated  by  the  "  pastors  "  in  Ephes. 
4  :  11.  Their  pastoral  functions  are  certainly  mentioned  in  Acts  20  :  28; 
1  Clem.  44  :  3  ;  Ignatius,  ad  Rom.  9  :  1. 


340  THE  EUCHARISTIC  ASSEMBLY  [IV 

not  be  indicated  at  all)  they  have  to  perform  as  an  avocation 
also  the  office  of  teacher  (in  the  now  current  sense).  But 
it  is  said :  bishops  and  deacons  must  be  worthy  of  the  Lord, 
gentle  and  7iot  lovers  of  money  (these  two  predicates  alone  have 
individual  character),  for  they  too  perform  the  ministry  of 
the  prophets  and  teachers.  That  is :  the  "  ministry  of  the 
prophets  and  teachers "  which  is  here  contemplated  (upon 
which  the  bishops  and  deacons  enter  as  substitutes),  makes 
these  two  qualifications  necessary,  viz.  gentle  (or  meek)  and 
not  lovers  of  money.  There  is  not  the  least  doubt  that 
both  the  qualifications  named  have  reference  to  the  Eucharist 
and  the  administration  of  the  gifts.  Because  the  bishops  and 
deacons  have  to  perform  the  ministry  of  the  prophets  and 
teachers  in  the  Eucharist,  because  this  is  their  principal  office 
and  proper  function,  therefore  the  bishops  and  deacons  must 
possess  those  qualifications.  It  is  only  in  this  way  that  the 
whole  passage  gains  logical  coherency.  It  appears  here  as 
the  principal  office  of  bishops  and  deacons  to  discharge  the 
ministry  of  the  prophets  and  teachers  —  only  so  is  the  "yap 
intelligible.  As  certainly  then  as  the  principal  function  of 
the  bishops  (and  deacons,  cf.  §  22)  consists  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Eucharist  and  of  the  offerings  (above,  pp.  331  sqq.), 
just  so  surely  may  we  conclude  that  the  "  ministry  of  the 
prophets  and  teachers  "  which  is  here  in  question  is  no  other 
than  the  administration  of  the  Eucharist  and  of  the  offerings. 

While  this  passage  has  hitherto  counted  as  the  strongest 
bulwark  of  the  prevailing  view,  which  separates  the  functions 
of  teaching  and  administration,  and  assumes  a  gradual  trans- 
ference of  the  teaching  function  to  the  bishop's  office  (cf. 
Harnack's  commentary  to  Didache,  xv.  2) ;  it  results  from  a 
closer  inspection  that  the  passage  furnishes  a  complete  refuta- 
tion of  the  universally  prevalent  view.  It  results  from  this 
passage  that  it  was  precisely  the  "administration"  of  the 
Eucharist  and  the  Church  property  which  was  ascribed  as  a 
matter  of  principle  to  the  teaching  office  (the  charismatic 
teachers)  ;  and  hence,  when  the  administration  of  the  Eucha- 
rist and  of  the  Church  property  was  confided  to  those  who 
had  not  the  teaching  charisma,  they  represented  the  teaching 


§  21]  BISHOPS  341 

office  as  substitutes  for  the  gifted  teachers  —  just  as  has  been 
described  above.  Bishops  and  deacons  are  elected  to  supply 
the  place  of  the  prophets  and  teachers  (who  were  not  always 
to  be  had)  in  the  presidency  of  the  Eucharist  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  gifts.  This  is  what  the  Didache  (xv,  in  connec- 
tion with  xiv.,  cf.  note  4)  directly  proves.  With  this  agrees 
the  warning  in  c.  xv.  2,  not  to  esteem  meanly  the  bishops  and 
deacons,  "  for  they  are  the  honored  among  you  with  the  proph- 
ets and  teachers."  Bishops  and  deacons  enjoy  the  like  honor 
as  the  prophets  and  teachers.  What  honor  ?  The  chief  honor 
in  the  Church,  the  honor  par  excellence,  is  again  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Eucharist  and  the  administration  (including  a 
personal  share)  of  the  offerings  (cf.  p.  329).  Here,  too,  we  have 
the  same  result  as  before:  because  bishops  and  deacons  ad- 
minister the  offerings,  like  the  prophets  and  teachers,  they 
are  not  to  be  meanly  esteemed — although  bishops  and  deacons 
are  not  the  same  as  prophets  and  teachers.  The  substance  of 
the  bishop's  office  is  the  administration  of  the  Eucharist  and 
of  the  Church  property.  By  reason  of  this  —  viz.  this  "admin- 
istration"—  they  are  to  be  ranked  with  those  who  possess  the 
apostolic  gift  of  teaching. 

Bishops  and  deacons  were  elected,  and  ordained  with 
the  laying  on  of  hands ;  but  so  were  the  charismatic 
officers,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  elec- 
tion and  ordination  had  a  different  significance  in  the 
two  cases.  The  bishop,  too,  was  elected  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  prophecy,^  and  received  the  laying  on  of 
hands.-^*'  The  elected  bishop,  like  the  teacher,  counted 
as  one  who  was  chosen,  not  by  the  assembly,  but  by 

9  Cf.  p.  256,  note  4. 

10  The  earliest  testimony  is  Acts  14  :  23,  "  And  when  they  had  ap- 
pointed them  elders  in  every  Church,  and  had  prayed  with  tasting,  they 
committed  them  unto  the  Lord."  In  the  fasting,  as  well  as  in  the 
prayer  and  the  committing  them  unto  the  Lord,  the  act  of  ordination  is 
described,  —  cf.  p.  258,  note  6  That  we  have  a  right  to  regard  the 
appointed  presbyters  in  this  passage  as  bishops  will  appear  from  the 
following  discussion. 


342  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

God."  And  again,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  teaching 
office,  the  election  was  not  regarded  as  an  appointment 
or  commission  in  any  juristic  sense,  but  rather  as  a  testi- 
mony on  the  part  of  the  assembly  ;  and  the  laying  on 
of  hands  was  regarded  as  a  confirmation  of  a  god-given 
charisma.-^^  Thus,  again,  election  to  the  episcopal  office 
turns  out  to  be  a  purely  spiritual  transaction. 

From  what  class  were  the  bishops  chosen  ? 

Since  the  bishop  was  chosen  as  a  substitute  for  the 
teacher  of  apostolic  gifts,  it  follows  that  he  was  not 
chosen  from  among  the  ''  prophets "  and  "  teachers." 
Indeed,  the  presence  of  such  a  personage  rendered  the 
election  of  a  bishop  unnecessary.  For  the  episcopate, 
it  was  necessary  to  choose  a  man  who,  in  spite  of  his 
lack  of  the  apostolic  gift  of  teaching,  was  nevertheless 
capable  of  administering  the  teaching  office,  and  in 
particular  that  part  of  it  which  had  to  do  with  the 
conduct  of  the  Eucharist  and  the  distribution  of  the 
Church  property. 

We  reach  the  same  result  when  we  consider  the  list 
of  qualifications  required  of  the  bishop  in  the  early 
sources. ^^     A  certain  capacity  for  teaching  is  accounted 

11  Cf.  p.  256,  note  4. 

12  On  the  charisma  of  the  bishop  see  below,  p.  361. 

13  The  Epistle  of  Clement  (44  : 2)  requires  merely  that  "  approved 
men  "  be  appointed  as  bishops  and  deacons  ;  —  cf .  42  :  4,  the  apostles 
"appointed  their  first-fruits  as  bishops  and  deacons,  when  they  had 
proved  them  by  the  Spirit."  The  Dldache  (xv.  1)  is  somewhat  fuller  : 
those  who  are  to  be  elected  as  bishops  must  be  "worth}'  of  the  Lord, 
meek  and  not  lovers  of  money  and  true  and  approved."  The  fullest  list 
is  that  given  in  1  Tim.  3  : 2-7,  "The  bishop  therefore  must  be  without 
reproach,  the  husband  of  one  wife  (/was  yvvaiKoi  ai>8pa),  temperate,  sober- 
minded,  orderly,  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach  (diduKTiKov) ;  not  given 
to  wine,  no  striker ;  but  gentle,  not  contentious,  no  lover  of  money ;  one 
that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,  having  his  children  in  subjection  with  all 
gravity;  (but  if  a  man  knoweth  not  how  to  rule  his  own  house,  how 
shall  he  take  care  of  the  Church  of  God?)  not  a  novice,  lest  being  puffed 


§  21]  BISHOPS  343 

desirable  in  the  bishop  ;  but  little  stress  is  laid  upon 
this  point  even  in  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus, 
Clement  and  the  Didache  say  nothing  about  it,  and 
the  Apost.  Church  Order,  while  desiring  an  "  educated  " 
bishop  who  can  "  interpret  the  Scriptures,"  expressly 
concedes  that  this  is  not  necessary.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  qualifications  upon  which  all  the  sources 
insist  are  such  as  are  peculiarly  pertinent  to  the 
bishop's  functions  as  president  of  the  Eucharist  and 
administrator  of  the  Church  property.  This  connection 
explains  the  significance  of  the  oft-repeated  demand 
that  the  bishop  be  no  drunkard.  His  responsibility 
for  the  Church  funds  accounts  for  the  requisition  that 
he  be  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre. 

Sohm  suggests  that  the  emphasis  which  is  laid  upon 
sexual  purity  (for  /xta?  yvvaiKo<;  dvTJp,  however  it  may 
be  interpreted,  has  substantially  this  significance)  is 
likewise  referable  to  the  bishop's  function  at  the  Eu- 


up  he  fall  into  the  condemnation  of  the  devil.  He  must  have  good  testi- 
mony also  from  them  that  are  without,  lest  he  fall  into  reproach  and  the 
snare  of  the  devil."  Similarly  Titus  1  :  6-9,  "  if  any  man  is  blameless,  the 
husband  of  one  wife,  having  children  that  believe,  who  are  not  accused 
of  riot  or  unruly.  For  the  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  God's  steward; 
not  selfwilled,  not  soon  angry,  not  given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  greedy 
of  filthy  lucre;  but  given  to  hospitality,  a  lover  of  good,  soberminded, 
just,  holy,  temperate ;  holding  to  the  faithful  word  which  is  according 
to  the  teaching,  that  he  may  be  able  to  exhort  in  the  sound  doctrine,  and 
to  convict  the  gainsayers."  Compare  with  this  Source  A  of  the  Apost. 
Church  Order  of  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  (Harnack,  Texte, 
II.  5,  pp.  8  sqq.)  :  in  the  choice  of  a  bishop  "who  is  worthy,"  it  must  be 
examined  "  if  he  has  a  good  reputation  among  the  heathen,  if  he  is  irre- 
proachable, if  a  friend  of  the  poor,  if  soberminded,  no  drunkard,  not 
licentious,  not  greedy,  or  abusive,  or  partisan,  or  the  like.  It  is  well  for 
him  to  be  unmarried,  but  if  not,  a  man  who  has  had  one  wife  (oTro  yuas 
yvvaiKos  —  unius  uxoris  viduus,  Holtzraann);  having  some  education, 
able  to  interpret  the  scriptures,  —  but  if  unlearned,  then  meek,  abound- 
ing in  love  to  all,  in  order  that  a  bishop  may  never  in  any  matter  be 
subject  to  rebuke  from  the  many," 


344  THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

diarist  —  "  in  order  that  your  sacrifice  may  be  pure." 
He  remarks,  too,  that  we  may  see  in  this  the  first 
intimation  of  the  view  which  subsequently  conditioned 
the  development  of  the  Catholic  notion  of  priesthood. 
There  is  a  great  distance,  however,  between  the  second 
century  rule  which  required  a  celibate  bishop,  or  at 
least  a  widower,  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  with  their 
requirement  of  a  married  bishop  who  by  ruling  well 
his  own  household  shall  prove  his  capacity  for  "  taking 
care  of  the  Church  of  God."  How  significantly  this  last 
phrase  reveals  the  importance  of  the  bishop's  office  and 
the  broad  scope  of  his  superintendence  ! 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  requirements  which 
are  variously  expressed  as  "  a  lover  of  good,"  "  a  lover 
of  the  poor,"  "  abounding  in  love  to  all,"  are  particu- 
larly pertinent  to  that  important  part  of  the  bishop's 
work  which  had  to  do  with  the  administration  of  the 
alms  of  the  Church.  The  jealousy  and  contention  to 
which  this  administration  was  likely  to  give  rise,  made 
it  the  more  necessary  that  the  bishop  himself  should  be 
"  not  self  willed,  not  soon  angry,"  "  but  gentle,  not  con- 
tentious," —  if  indeed  these  qualifications  do  not  rather 
refer  to  the  bishop's  function  as  judge  of  the  disputes 
which  were  brought  to  the  assembly.  That  the  bishop 
must  be  "  given  to  hospitality  "  betokens  his  relation  to 
the  strangers  from  other  Churches  who  expected  enter- 
tainment upon  their  travels  or  as  a  preliminary  to  their 
settlement  in  the  congregation.  The  requisition  that 
the  bishop  "  must  have  good  testimony  also  from  them 
that  are  without,"  proves  that  he  represented  the  disci- 
ples not  only  in  their  relations  with  other  Churches,  but 
also  in  their  relations  with  the  heathen  society  which 
surrounded  them  —  hence  he  must  be  "  able  also  to  con- 
vict the  gainsayers."     This  gives  us   an  idea  of   the 


§  21]  BISHOPS  345 

great  importance  of  the  bishop  even  before  the  Catholic 
age  —  he  was  already  the  persona  of  the  community. 
Finally,  the  bishop  must  be  no  neophyte  (or  novice) 

—  not  a  newly  baptized  Christian,  but  one  whose  ster- 
ling Christian  character  has  been  proved  by  time.  In 
other  words,  the  bishop  shall  be  chosen,  not  from  the 
younger  n:iembers  of  the  Church,  but  from  the  older. 
It  is  in  this  sense  that  both  the  Didache  and  the  Epistle 
of  Clement  demand  that  the  bishops  shall  be  "  approved 
men."  In  1  Clem.  44  : 3  the  bishops  whom  the  Corin- 
thians unjustly  deprived  of  the  administration  of  the 
Eucharist  are  said  to  be  men  who  "  for  a  long  time  have 
borne  a  good  report  with  all "  ;  and  in  42 :  4  the  apos- 
tles are  said  to  have  appointed  their  "  first-fruits "  as 
bishops  —  that  is,  the  oldest  members  in  the  commu- 
nity, reckoning  age  by  the  term  of  Christian  experience. 
We  can  already  affirm  at  this  point  that  the  bishop 
must  be  an  elder  (npeafivTepo^).  The  disciples  must 
know  the  man  whom  they  chose  as  their  bishop.  It 
is  a  responsible  office  to  which  the  bishop  is  called, 
and  one  in  which  the  most  judicious  conduct  will 
hardly  escape  criticism  and  misinterpretation:  at  the 
same  time  it  is  a  position  of  such  power  and  influ- 
ence that  it  is  likely  to  turn  the  head  of  a  novice  — 
•^'•'  lest  being  puffed  up  he  fall  into  the  condemnation  of 
the  devil." 

This  brings  us  to  the  difficult  question  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  bishops  to  the  elders  in  the  primitive  age. 
The  view  which  has  been  generally  prevalent  since  the 
Reformation,  and  which  can  be  traced  back  to  St. 
Jerome,  regarded  the  bishops  and  presbyters  as  identical 

—  they  were  simply  two  names  for  the  same  office. 
It   is   Hatch's   chief   service   to  have  demolished  this 


i 


346  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

theory.^*  It  is  not  possible  to  identify  the  presbyters 
and  bishops,  even  if  we  have  solely  in  view  the  New 
Testament  passages  which  bear  on  the  subject,  while  as 
an  explanation  of  the  Catholic  development  such  a 
theory  leaves  us  hopelessly  in  the  dark.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  equally  .inadmissible  to  contrast,  as  has 
recently  been  done,  the  bishops  and  presbyters  as 
two  classes  of  officers  having  disparate  and  opposite 
functions. 

The  facts  which  we  have  to  explain  are  briefly  these : 
(1)  Bishops  and  deacons  are  undoubtedly  represented  in 
the  Christian  literature  of  the  first  century  (including 
the  New  Testament)  as  officers ;  they  are  commonly 
associated  together  in  such  a  way  as  proves  that  their 
functions  were  closely  related ;  and  together  they  seem 
to  constitute  a  sufficient  organization  for  the  local 
congregation.  (2)  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  the  fre- 
quent mention  of  presbyters  (elders),  who  in  the  second 
century,  at  least,  appear  as  formal  officers  distinct  from 
the  bishops,  while  both  in  the  first  century  and  the 
second  we  find  the  bishops  classed  among  the  presby- 
ters, and   even   called   presbyters  simply.     Still  more 

"  Cf .  Sohm,  p.  92,  note  27,  for  an  estimate  of  Hatch's  work,  and  for 
a  summary  of  the  subsequent  theories  which  are  due  to  his  impulse. 
Compare  also  above,  pp.  16  sqq.  and  93  sqq.  The  principal  theme  of 
Hatch's  Organization  of  the  Early  Christian  Churches  may  be  said  to  be 
the  distinction  between  bishops  and  presbjiiers,  but  even  on  this  point 
his  work  is  not  free  from  self-contradictions,  and  as  a  whole  it  fails  to 
furnish  any  consistent  view  of  the  situation.  The  more  positive  part 
of  Hatch's  theory  —  his  attempt  to  derive  Church  organization  from  the 
current  forms  of  secular  societies  —  has  not  proved  generallj'  acceptable, 
and  the  manifest  extravagance  with  which  he  presses  this  theory  suf- 
ficiently accounts  for  the  fact  that  his  just  criticism  of  the  old  view  has 
had  less  influence  than  it  ought  to  have  upon  public  opinion  in  England 
and  America.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  all  the  constructive  work 
which  has  lately  been  done  in  this  field  starts  with  the  discrimination 
between  presbyters  and  bishops. 


§  21]  BISHOPS  347 

briefly :  on  the  one  hand  the  bishops  stand  in  close  re- 
lation to  the  deacons ;  on  the  other  hand  they  stand  in 
no  less  close  a  relation  to  the  presbyters. 

Of  what  sort  was  the  relation  in  each  case  ?  The  old 
answer  was,  that  the  first  was  a  relation  between  two 
different  classes  of  officers  —  the  only  ordinary  officers 
of  the  congregation ;  while  the  second  was  a  relation  of 
identity  —  bishops  were  simply  presbyters  under  another 
name.  Hatch's  theory  substantially  is  that  there  were 
three  sets'of  officers,  and  that  the  bishop  in  the  discharge 
of  one  of  his  functions  (as  Church  treasurer)  was  closely 
associated  with  the  deacons,  while  in  discharge  of  another 
-(that  of  discipline)  he  presided  over  the  college  of  pres- 
byters. Sohm's  solution  is  that  there  were  but  two  sorts 
of  officers  in  the  Church  (apart  from  the  charismatic 
ministry  of  apostles,  prophets  and  teachers),  and  these 
"svere  the  bishops  and  deacons.  The  presbyters  during 
the  first  century  were  not  officers,  but  merely  a  class  in 
the  community,  the  class  of  elder  disciples,  the  "  honora- 
bles  "  of  the  community,  from  whose  number  the  bishop 
was  chosen,  and  among  whom  he  w^as  ranked  when  it 
was  rather  dignity  than  office  that  was  in  question  — 
just  as  were  the  Apostles  themselves.  The  presbyter 
as  such  was  not  elected  nor  appointed,  but  enjoyed  his 
informal  position  of  leadership  by  common  and  informal 
consent :  when  an  elder  is  "  appointed  "  there  is  nothing 
else  he  can  be  appointed  to  but  the  episcopate  —  the 
''  appointed  elder  "  is  ipso  facto  a  bishop. 

It  will  be  recognized  that  this  last  hypothesis  is  neces- 
sary to  bring  Sohm's  view  into  accord  with  all  the  facts, 
particularly  those  which  we  encounter  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. To  my  mind  it  is  the  only  view  which  is  in  com- 
plete harmony  with  the  facts  as  we  know  them  in  the 
primitive  age,  and  it  has  the  additional  advantage  of 


348  THE  EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

furnishing  us  with  a  starting-point  which  renders  the 
subsequent  development  comprehensible.  The  general 
significance  of  this  view  has  been  illustrated  in  §  19. 

Sohm  turns  first  to  the  Epistle  of  Clement  {circa 
A.  D.  96)  for  confirmation  of  his  view  of  the  position  of 
the  elders  in  the  primitive  Church. ^^  The  occasion  of  this 
letter  was  the  disorder  which  had  arisen  in  the  Church 
at  Corinth.  In  c.  1  the  former  happy  condition  of 
this  Church  is  described  in  the  words  :  "  ye  walked  after 
the  ordinances  of  God,  submitting  yourselves  to  your 
riders  (r)yov[xei>oL<?)  and  rendering  to  the  elder  men  among 
you  {toU  Trap  vjxlv  Tr/oecrySvTepot?)  the  honor  which  is 
their  due :  on  the  yotm(/  (z^eot?)  too  ye  enjoined  modest  and 
seemly  thoughts ;  and  the  women  (yvpaL^i)  ye  charged  to 
perform  all  their  dut'ies  in  a  blameless  and  seemly  and 
pure  conscience."  All  the  classes  in  the  Church  are  here 
enumerated  :  the  official  leaders,  to  whom  obedience  is 
due  (the  incumbents  of  the  teaching  office  are  meant, 
here  especially  the  bishops) ;  the  elders  (not  officers),  to 
whom  honor  is  due ;  the  young  men  and  the  women,  to 
whom  instruction  is  due.  The  elders,  like  the  young 
and  the  women,  represent  merely  a  natural  class  in  the 
community :  they  enjoy  a  position  of  honor,  but  they 
hold  no  office.^^  In  contrast  to  this,  the  present  abnor- 
mal condition  of  the  Church  is  described  in  c.  3  :  ''  men 
were  stirred  up  (in  Corinth),  the  mean  against  the 
honorable,  those  of  no  repute  against  the  highlij-repided, 
the  foolish  against  the  wise,  the  young  against  the  elder'' 
{npea-IBvTepovs).  It  is  evident  that  the  same  contrast 
is  in  view  throughout.  The  Church  is  here  thought  of 
in  its  two  principal  divisions,  the  young  and  the  old. 
We  must  understand  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the 
"  rulers  "   (teachers    of    various    sorts,    here    especially 

1^  Sohm,  pp.  93  sqq.  i®  Cf .  Lightfoot  in  loc. 


§  21]  BISHOPS  349 

the  bishops)  are  included  in  the  class  of  the  elders,  the 
honored  and  distinguished  portion  of  the  community. 
But  the  elders  in  general,  the  elders  as  such,  are  not 
officers,  but  merely  such  members  of  the  Church  as  are 
justly  distinguished  in  honor  and  held  in  high  repute 
for  their  mature  wisdom  and  other  personal  character- 
istics. We  may  already  deduce  from  this  that  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Church  belong  to  the  class  of  the  elders, 
though  the  elders  as  such  are  not  officers,  but  merely 
"  the  honorable,  the  highly-reputed,  the  wise."  Later 
on  in  the  epistle  (c.  21)  the  Corinthians  are  admonished 
to  restore  again  the  right  order  in  the  Church :  "  Let 
us  reverence  our  rulers  ;  let  us  honor  our  elders  ;  let  us 
instruct  our  young  men  in  the  lesson  of  the  fear  of  God ; 
let  us  guide  our  women  toward  that  which  is  good." 
Here  we  have  again,  as  in  the  first  passage,  the  complete 
enumeration  of  the  four  classes,  and  evidently  in  the 
same  sense. 

The  other  passages  of  the  epistle  correspond  with 
this  usage,  as  we  might  expect.  The  disturbance  at 
Corinth  is  again  spoken  of  (c.  47)  as  a  revolt  of  the 
young  against  the  "  elders,"  and  another  passage 
(c.  57)  again  exhorts  to  obedience  to  the  "elders." 
Here  the  word  "  elders "  {Trpea-^vrepov^)  is  used  in 
the  same  sense  as  in  the  second  passage  quoted  above : 
the  elders  include  the  "rulers"  (the  officers).  Another 
passage  (c.  44)  speaks  of  the  bishops,  urging  that  they 
ought  not  without  reason  to  be  displaced  from  their 
office,  and  then  adds :  "  Blessed  are  those  elders  {rrpeo-- 
^vTepoi)  who  have  gone  before,  seeing  that  their 
departure  was  fruitful  and  ripe :  for  they  had  no  fear 
lest  any  one  should  remove  them  from  their  appointed 
place."  It  is  clear  that  the  bishops  are  here  reckoned 
as  elders  ;  —  not,  however,  because  the  elder  (presbyter) 


350  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

as  such  is  a  bishop,  but  because  every  bishop  is  an 
elder.  This  agrees  with  the  conclusion  we  have  al- 
ready reached,  that  the  bishops  were  chosen  from  that 
class  of  the  community  which  were  known  as  the 
elders.  There  remains  one  more  passage  which  refers 
to  the  organization  of  the  Corinthian  Church  (c.  54) : 
"  let  the  flock  of  Christ  be  at  peace  with  the  appointed 
elders''  Who  are  the  "  appointed  elders "  ?  The 
elders  in  general  are  not  appointed  —  any  more  than 
the  young  men  and  the  women  —  but  are  a  natural 
class  in  the  community.  The  appointed  elders  must 
signify  a  smaller  class  within  the  general  body  of  the 
elders.  There  cannot  be  the  least  doubt  who  is  meant  : 
the  bishops  are  "  appointed  "  (1  Clem.  42  :  4  ;  44  :  2,  3) 
and  are  at  the  same  time  reckoned  among  the  elders, 
from  whose  ranks  they  are  chosen.  The  ap)pointcd 
elders,  who  by  their  appointment  are  called  to  a  definite 
^official  function,  are  the  bishops. 

Sohm  finds  still  another  passage  in  the  Epistle  of 
Clement  which  illustrates  the  character  of  the  elders 
of  the  early  Church  —  this  time  they  are  elders  of  the 
Roman  Church.  The  last  chapter  of  the  epistle  (c.  65) 
mentions  by  name  three  men  who  were  sent  by  the 
Roman  Church  to  carry  the  letter  to  the  Corinthians, 
to  establish  peace  in  that  Church,  and  to  serve  as 
^'witness  between  you  and  us."  In  chapter  63  these 
men  are  described :  they  are  old  men,  from  youth  vp 
tliey  have  belonged  to  the  Roman  Church,  they  are  faithful 
and  prudent,  and  during  all  the  long  period  of  their 
Christian  life  they  have  earned  the  respect  and  confi- 
dence of  the  Church  by  their  blameless  conduct.  Accord- 
ingly, they  are  old  not  only  in  years,  but  likewise 
in  Christian  experience ;  for  their  seniority  is  reckoned 
rather  by  the  years  of  their  membership  in  the  Church, 


§  21]  BISHOPS  351 

than  according  to  their  natural  age.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  these  three  men  were  elders  in  the  eccle- 
siastical sense  —  that  is  to  say,  they  were  presbyters 
of  the  Roman  Church.  It  goes  without  saying  that 
they  must  have  been  men  of  importance  who  were 
sent  upon  such  a  mission,  and  the  epistle  expressly 
states  that  the  sending  of  such  men  is  a  proof  of  the 
solicitude  of  the  Roman  Church  for  the  restoration 
of  peace.  Who  could  they  be  but  presbyters  of  the 
Roman  Church  ?  ^" 

This  brief  description  of  the  delegates  of  the  Roman 
Church  to  the  Corinthians  has  a  high  value  for  us, 
for  in  it  we  may  read  the  marks  which  characterized 
a  Roman  presbyter  about  the  end  of  the  first  cen- 
tury. It  substantiates  the  conclusion  we  have  already 
reached :  one  who  was  old  in  years,  and  at  the  same 
time  ripe  in  Christian  experience,  long  known  in  the 
community  in  which  he  lived,  and  approved  by  the 
blamelessness  of  his  conduct,  enjoyed  the  honor  of  an 
elder  in  the  Church.  Neither  here  nor  in  resrard  to 
the  elders  of  the  Corinthian  Church  is  anything  said 
of  appointment  to  office,  or  of  any  consecration  through 
the  laying  on  of  hands.  It  is  important  to  note 
that  these  three  delegates  bear  no  official  titles.  If 
they  had  been  bishops  or  deacons,  their  official  title 
would  surely  have  been  mentioned,  for  that  would 
have  constituted  for  them  an  express  legitimation  as 

^■^  Cf.  Lightfoot,  S.  Clement  of  Rome,  vol.  I.  pp.  27  sqq.,  on  the  names 
of  two  of  these  "delegates,"  Claudius  Ephebus  and  Valerius  Bito,  from 
which  he  argues  that  they  were  probably  included  among  them  "  that  are 
of  Caesar's  household,"  whose  salutation  St.  Paul  conveyed  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Philippians  (4  :  22).  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  third  delegate, 
Fortunatns,  is  mentioned  in  such  a  way  as  suggests  that  he  was  not  of 
the  same  rank  as  the  others  (c.  65,  "  Claudius  Ephebus  and  Valerius  Vito, 
together  with  Fortunatus  also"),  and  it  may  be  that  he  was  a  younger 
member  attached  to  the  mission. 


352  THE   EUCIIARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

delegates  of  the  Roman  Church.  Being  merely  elders^ 
however,  they  lack  an  official  designation.  "  Pres- 
byter" is  not  a  title.  The  presbyter  as  such  held 
no  office,  he  was  not  even  formally  designated  or  ap- 
pointed —  otherwise  the  term  "  presbyter  "  would  have 
been  a  formal  title:  the  class  of  presbyters  was  still 
somewhat  vague  and  undefined  —  like  the  class  of 
the  "young."  There  was  no  appointment  to  the 
presbyterate,  but  only  to  the  episcopate  (or  deaconate) : 
if  the  presbyter  was  appointed,  he  was  appointed  to 
the  episcopate. 

We  get  from  the  Epistle  of  Clement  a  perfectly 
consistent  notion  of  the  presbyters  at  the  end  of  the 
first  century,  as  well  at  Corinth  as  at  Rome.  Sohm 
justly  lays  stress  upon  the  importance  of  this  epistle, 
which  emanated  from  the  representative  Church  of 
Christendom,  and  was  expressly  designed  to  restore 
the  Corinthian  Church  to  its  former  order  —  the  normal 
order,  as  the  epistle  evidently  assumes,  the  order  of  all 
the  Churches,  and  that  by  divine  appointment  through 
the  Apostles. 

We  find  this  assumption  substantiated  when  we  turn 
to  our  other  sources  of  information  about  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Church  before  the  Catholic  ao;e.  We  learn 
from  them  on  the  one  hand  that  the  term  "  elder  "  de- 
noted merely  a  natural  class  in  the  community,  not  an 
office  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  in  apparent  contradiction 
to  this,  that  there  were  appointed  elders  —  of  which  more 
hereafter. 

The  first  point  is  proved  by  the  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  inasmuch  as  it  mentions  only  two  offices,  "  bishops 
and  deacons  "  (1  :  1),  and  no  office  of  elder.  Again,  by 
the  Diddclic,  which  enjoins  it  as  a  duty  to  "  elect  bishops 
and  deacons,"  and   says  nothing  about  the  election  of 


§  21]  BISHOPS  353 

elders.  The  same  is  proved  above  all  by  the  Pastoral 
Epistles.  The  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  deals  in  the 
third  chapter  with  the  offices  of  the  Church  and  men- 
tions only  the  bishop  and  deacons,  concluding  with  the 
remark  that  this  is  the  instruction  about  the  order 
which  is  to  be  observed  in  the  Ecclesia  as  the  house  of 
God.  Nothino;  is  said  of  the  elders  in  connection  with 
the  offices  of  the  Church  ;  they  are  not  mentioned  be- 
fore the  fifth  chapter,  where  Timothy's  conduct  towards 
the  individual  memhers  of  the  community  is  regulated. 
Here  (5  :  1,  2)  the  natural  classes  in  the  community  are 
distinguished  as  "  old  men  "  {Trpecr^vTepco)  and  "  young 
men"  (veoTepov^),  '^^  old  women"  (7r/oecr/3uTe/3as)  and 
"young  women"   {vecorepaq). 

Among  the  "  old  women,"  widows  especially  are 
considered  (5  :  3-16),  and  among  these  again  a  more 
limited  class  who  are  "  widows  indeed,"  i.  e.  such  as 
deserve  to  be  "  enrolled "  upon  the  official  list  of  the 
beneficiaries  of  the  Church  offerings.  The  qualifica- 
tions that  entitle  a  widow  to  this  honor  are  specified 
at  length  :  she  must  be  at  least  threescore  years  old  ; 
one  who  had  been  but  once  married,  and  during  her 
married  life  had  exemplified  her  Christian  character 
in  all  sorts  of  good  works ;  who  is  without  means  of 
support  or  kindred  upon  whom  she  can  depend;  and 
who  is  willing  to  devote  herself  constantly  to  prayer 
and  to  works  of  charity. 

Among  "  the  old  men  "  {Trpea-fivTepot),  likewise,  there 
was  a  more  limited  class  that  deserved  particular  consid- 
eration. Just  as  among  the  widows  that  were  such  in 
a  natural  sense  there  were  some  that  were  also  widows 
in  the  ecclesiastical  sense,  so  among  the  old  men  there 
were  some  that  were  accounted  elders  indeed.  The  class 
of  elders  (or  presbyters)  who  were  such  in  the  ecclesiasti- 

23 


354  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

cal  sense  was,  however,  less  readily  defined  than  the  class 
that  is  described  as  "  widows  indeed."  There  was  no 
formal  mark  by  which  they  could  be  known :  it  was 
not  prescribed  that  they  must  be  widowers  or  single ; 
not  even  a  precise  age  limit  was  specified  ;  and  it  does  not 
appear  that  they  were  even  enrolled.  Yet  they  too 
were  to  receive  a  portion  of  the  offerings,  and  indeed  a 
double  portion, — "double  honor"  it  is  called,  that  is, 
twice  the  portion  of  the  widow.-^^  Such  men  are  vaguely 
described  (1  Tim.  5  :  17)  as  "  the  well-presiding  elders,^^ 

18  Compare  the  third  century  source  of  Book  II.  of  the  Apostolic  Con- 
stitutions, c.  28  («'.  e.  the  part  which  corresponds  with  the  Syrian  Didas- 
kalia):  "  How  much  soever  is  given  (from  the  offerings)  to  each  of  the 
widows,  let  double  as  much  be  given  to  the  deacons  in  honor  of  Christ ; 
and  if  any  one  wishes  to  honor  the  presbyters  also,  let  there  be  given  a 
double  portion  to  them,  as  to  the  deacons."  The  same  regulation  is 
recognizable  in  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus,  ix.  §§  58,  59. 

19  1  Tim.  5  :  17,  18,  —  "  Let  the  elders  ruling  well  (oi  KaXw?  npoearwrfs 
7rpf(T^vTtpoi)  be  counted  woi-thy  of  double  honor,  especially  tlio.se  laboring 
in  the  word  and  in  teaching.  For  the  Scripture  saith,  Thou  shalt  not 
muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn.  And,  The  laborer  is 
worthy  of  his  hire."  Nothing  is  said  of  the  elders  who  fail  to  merit 
such  honor  simply  because  they  do  nothing  to  fulfil  the  obligations,  in 
the  way  of  leadership  and  instruction,  which  naturally  belong  to  their 
age  and  station.  But  vv.  19,  20  go  on  to  speak  of  the  elders  who  posi- 
tively offend  :  "  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation,  except  at  the 
instance  of  two  or  three  witnesses.  Them  that  sin  reprove  in  the  sight 
of  all,  that  the  rest  also  may  be  in  fear."  This  regulation  does  not  indi- 
cate that  the  elders  here  spoken  of  are  officers  —  as  though  the  two  or  three 
witnesses  required  denoted  an  exception  in  their  favor,  a  sort  of  benefit 
of  clergy,  —  for  it  is  simply  the  common  rule  enjoined  by  the  Loi'd  him- 
self for  all  cases  of  judgment  and  discipline  in  the  Ecclesia  (Matt.  IS  :  15- 
17.  Cf.  above,  p.  227).  Indeed,  we  have  here  the  proof  that  these  elders 
were  not  officers.  The  question  is,  what  to  do  about  sinning  elders.  But 
according  to  the  primitive  conception,  a  bad  bishop  (or  official  presbj'ter) 
was  no  bishop  at  all :  he  ceased  to  be  such  the  moment  he  fell  into  sin,  for 
the  sin  was  a  sign  that  the  charisma  was  lacking,  and  on  that  depended 
the  office.  Hence  the  early  rule,  that  thi'ough  mortal  sin  ecclesiastical 
office  was  ipso  facto  made  void,  —  a  rule,  as  is  well  known,  to  which  the 
Roman  bishop  Callistus  (219-223  circa)  was  the  first  to  take  exception. 
The  seventeenth  verse,  about  "the  elders  who  rule  well,"  as  it  is  com- 
monly translated,  is  the  most  prominent  text  adduced  by  the  Presby- 


§  21]  BISHOPS  355 

especially  those  laboring  in  the  Avord  and  in  teaching." 
The  vagueness  of  this  description  is  the  best  proof  that 
the  elders  were  not  officers  with  definite  functions  to 
discharge.  Certain  of  the  elders  were  entitled  to  re- 
ceive a  double  portion  of  the  offerings.  Which  were 
they  ?  Those  that  performed  with  diligence  the  func- 
tions of  leadership.     What  functions  ?     The  writer  is 


terians  in  support  of  their  most  distinctive  institution,  the  "  ruling  elders  "  : 
it  has  been  worn  threadbare  in  controversy  with  the  English  Church  on 
the  one  hand,  and  with  the  Congregationalists  on  the  other,  while  among 
Presbyterians  themselves  it  has  been  as  hotly  disputed.  Modern  German 
writers  are  unanimous  in  explaining  the  koXws  npotcrTcoTes  irpea^vTepoi  as 
bishops.  Sohm's  interpretation  (pp.  99-102)  I  give  in  the  text.  The 
phrase  KaXas  Trpoecrrcores  cannot  be  well  rendered  in  English  :  wohl 
vorstehende  Alte  is  a  good  German  equivalent.  The  word  does  not 
necessarily  denote  the  authority  that  is  expressed  in  our  word  "  ruling." 
"Where  definite  functions  are  expressed  (in  the  genitive)  the  word  means 
no  more  than  to  be  occupied  with  them,  — cf.  "to  be  occupied  with  good 
works,"  in  Titus  3  :  8,  14.  In  1  Tim.  3  :  4,  5,  12,  where  it  is  the  bishop's 
authority  which  is  the  point  of  comparison,  it  signifies  authoritative  rule, 
as  of  a  father  over  his  family.  But  in  general  it  denotes  informal 
leadership,  and  may  include  the  bishops  as  well  as  the  elders,  the  older, 
as  opposed  to  the  younger  membei'S  of  the  Church,  —  cf.  1  Thess.  5 :  12. 
Presidency  is  in  this  case  perhaps  the  best  English  equivalent,  though 
it  does  not  express  the  more  active  side  of  the  notion.  The  elders  did 
enjoy  with  the  bishop  the  presidency  at  the  Eucharistic  table,  i.  e.  the 
chief  seats.  This  was  one  manifestation  of  the  high  regard  in  which 
they  were  held,  and  without  doubt  such  a  position  implied  a  general 
leadership  in  Church  affairs.  The  qualification  expressed  by  koKcos  may 
best  be  interpreted  by  comparing  it  with  eV  a-jrovdrj  in  Rom.  12 :  8. 
Properly  speaking,  there  was  no  precise  criterion  to  determine  whether 
the  leadership  which  naturally  belonged  to  the  elder  was  well  exercised 
or  ill, — for  this  his  functions  were  far  too  vague.  The  question  could 
only  be,  whether  in  general  he  lived  up  to  the  responsibilities  of  his 
station,  exercising  oversight  of  the  community,  and  performing  such 
works  as  his  hands  found  to  do  with  diligence  and  zeal.  One  of  the  more 
definite  functions,  however,  which  an  elder  might  be  expected  to  perform 
was  that  of  instruction,  particularly  in  the  case  of  the  young  and  of  the 
catechumens.  Hence  it  is  added,  ^'especially  those  that  labor  in  the 
word  and  in  teaching."  It  was  impossible  to  say  exactly  what  might  be 
expected  of  the  elders :  it  depended  upon  their  individual  qualifications 
and  personal  influence,  —  hence  the  vagueness  of  the  whole  statement. 


356  THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

unable  to  define  exactly,  but  one  function  occurs  to  him. 
as  the  most  important  that  an  elder  might  be  expected 
to  perform,  namely,  that  of  teaching  ;  —  hence  he  adds, 
^'  especially  those  that  labor  in  the  word  and  in  teach- 
ing." "Especially"!  The  direction  is  still  a  very 
vague  one.  Not  these  alone,  but  only  "especially" 
these.  All  of  the  elders  who  were  zealous  in  the  per- 
formance of  their  duties  could  not  be  expected  to  teach  : 
they  did  not  all  have  the  capacity  for  it ;  and,  besides, 
there  were  various  other  ways  in  which  they  could  serve 
the  Church.  Therefore  besides  the  elders  that  took  part 
in  the  instruction  there  were  others  who  were  elders  in- 
deed and  might  be  counted  worthy  of  an  elder's  honor. 
Who  ?  The  writer  cannot  say  precisely.  He  is  able 
to  describe  the  class  of  persons  which  is  here  in  ques- 
tion only  by  general  phrases,  not  by  any  sharp  defi- 
nition. For  the  simple  reason  that  "  the  well-presiding 
elders "  are  an  indefinite  class.  There  is  no  outward 
and  formal  criterion  which  constitutes  one  an  elder 
indeed.  The  presbyters  of  the  Epistle  to  Timothy  — 
even  those  that  are  characterized  as  presiding  well  — 
were  not  officers,  nor  in  any  wise  appointed.  The  name 
"  presbyter  "  was  not  an  ofiicial  title,  hence  this  name 
alone  did  not  suffice  to  define  the  class  of  persons  in 
question. 

The  bishops  doubtless  were  included  among  the  "  well- 
presiding  elders  "  :  they  too  received  a  portion  of  the 
offerings,  and  in  fact  a  double  portion.  But  the  num- 
ber of  "well-presiding  elders"  is  greater  than  the 
number  of  the  bishops,  and  hence  the  vagueness  of 
the  expression.  The  Epistle  to  Timothy  agrees  per- 
fectly in  this  respect  with  the  Epistle  of  Clement.  The 
bishops  were  reckoned  as  elders,  but  the  elders  as  such 
—  even  the  elders  in  the  ecclesiastical  sense  —  were  not 


§  21]  BISHOPS  357 

officials,  nor  "  appointed  "  persons,  but  a  necessarily  in- 
definite group  of  the  honorables  of  the  community. 

We  find  the  same  conception  in  Titus  2  :  2-6,  where 
the  various  classes  in  the  Church  are  reckoned  as  "  old 
men"  {irpecr^vTai),  "old  women,"  "young  women," 
and  "  young  men."  And  in  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,^*^ 
where  the  apostle  himself  appears  as  a  "  fellow  elder," 
and  the  Church  is  divided  between  the  "  elders  "  who 
"  tend  the  flock  of  God,"  and  the  "  young  "  whose  part 
it  is  to  "  obey."  The  elder  constitute  the  antithesis  of 
the  younger  :  neither  is  an  official  class,  and  conse- 
quently the  elders  as  such  are  not  "  appointed,"  any 
more  than  are  the  younger.  However,  the  officials  of 
the  Church,  including  the  apostles  (who  were,  of  course, 
in  point  of  Christian  experience  the  oldest  members  in 
the  community),  were  included  among  the  elders ;  and 
it  could  therefore  be  said  of  the  elders  in  general  — 
what  was  properly  and  in  the  fullest  sense  true  only  of 
the  incumbents  of  the  teaching  office  —  that  they  "  tend 
the  flock  of  God,"  —  and  all  the  more  so  because  to 
"  preside  "  and  to  "  exercise  oversight "  was  the  duty 
of  all  elders. 

But  we  find  at  the  same  time,  in  apparent  contradic- 
tion to  the  above,  that  there  were  also  appointed  elders. 
We  read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (14  :  23)  that  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  returning  from  their  first  missionary 
journey  and  revisiting  the  Churches  which  they  had 
planted,  "  appointed  for  them  elders  in  every  Church, 
praying  with  fasting."  The  Acts  speaks  again  (20 : 
17,  28)   of  "elders"  of  the   Church  at  Ephesus  who 

-^  1  Pet.  5 : 1,  2,  5,  "  The  elders  therefore  among  you  I  exhort,  who 
am  a  fellow  elder.  .  .  .  Tend  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  ex- 
ercising the  oversight.  .  .  .  Likewise,  ye  younger,  be  subject  unto  the 
elder  (npfa^vrfpois)." 


358  THE   EUCHAllISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

were  "  appointed "  (edero)  by  the  Holy  Ghost  (^.  c.  by 
prophecy)  to  shepherd  (Trot/xatVetv)  the  Church  of  God." 
In  the  Epistle  to  Titus  also  we  find  the  injunction  to 
the  evangelist  to  "appoint  elders  in  every  city,"  fol- 
lowed by  the  qualifications  which  must  be  demanded 
of  such  appointees  (1  :  5,  6).  But  the  apparent  con- 
tradiction is  at  once  resolved  when  we  read  further 
{vv.  7-9)  that  these  and  other  qualifications  are  neces- 
sary "  because  the  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  God's 
steward."  It  is  clear  that  the  "appointment"  of  the 
elders  is  not  an  appointment  to  the  office  of  elder 
(presbyter),  but  to  the  office  of  bishop.  We  find  pre- 
cisely the  same  thing  in  the  second  passage  cited  from 
the  Acts,  which  reads  in  full :  "  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
appointed  you  (the  Ephesian  elders)  bishops,  to  feed  the 
Church  of  God."  The  election  of  an  elder  (through 
prophecy  with  the  assent  of  the  Church)  is  an  elec- 
tion, 7iot  to  the  presbyterate,  but  to  the  episcopate. 
We  are  accordingly  justified  in  interpreting  the  first 
passage  from  the  Acts  (14  :  23)  as  an  appointment  of 
elders  to  the  office  of  bishop.  All  this  is  precisely 
in  accord  with  what  we  discovered  in  the  Epistle  of 
Clement. 

There  are,  it  is  true,  some  other  passages  in  which 
"elders"  are  mentioned  in  such  a  way  as  affords  us  no 
grounds  for  a  definite  conclusion  about  their  character 
and  functions.  This  is  the  case  especially  with  the 
''  elders  "  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  which  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Acts  ;  ^^  and  of  the  "  elders  "  of  the  Epistle 
of  St.  James,  who  are  to  be  called  for  to  pray  over  the 
sick.^  But  on  the  other  hand  there  is  nothing;  here  which 
gives  us  occasion  to  alter  the  above  interpretation.    From 

21  Acts  11:30;  15:2,  6,  22,  23;  16:4;  21:18. 

22  James  5  :  14. 


§21]  BISHOPS  359 

our  point  of  view  there  is  nothing  strange  in  the  influen- 
tial part  assigned  to  the  "elders"  of  the  Jerusalem 
Church  in  the  apostolic  council,^  or  in  the  fact  that  "  all 
the  elders"  were  gathered  together  in  the  house  of 
James.^*  In  Jerusalem  as  elsewhere  the  elders  were  the 
most  prominent  and  influential  members  of  the  commu- 
nity. It  is  somewhat  different,  however,  when  we  read 
in  Acts  11 :  30  that  the  contributions  of  the  Gentiles 
for  the  relief  of  the  Jerusalem  poor  were  sent  "  to  the 
elders,"  for  here  the  administration  of  Church  property 
is  evidently  ascribed  to  them.  It  is  possible  that  here 
and  in  other  passages  in  the  Acts  the  bishops  (who 
were  certainly  included  among  the  elders)  are  referred 
to  simply  by  this  title  ;  and  the  same  may  be  the  mean- 
ing in  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  where  the  sick  are  told 
to  send  for  the  elders  of  the  Church  to  pray  over  them. 
On  this  point,  however,  a  sure  conclusion  is  hardly  to 
be  reached.  Only  this  is  sure,  —  and  it  is  of  importance 
also  for  the  interpretation  of  the  passages  relative  to 
the  Jerusalem  elders,  —  that  the  Acts,  too,  expressly 
characterizes  the  appointed  presbyters  as  bishops.  And 
so  both  in  the  Acts  and  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  we  find 
confirmation  of  the  conclusion  which  we  derived  from 
the  Epistle  of  Clement,  that  in  the  first  century  there 
was  no  appointment  to  the  position  of  presbyter,  but 
only  appointment  of  presbyters  to  the  episcopate.^^ 

The  foregoing  digression  upon  the  subject  of  elders 
was  necessary  at  this  point  in  order  to  throw  into  just 
relief  the  importance  of  the  fact  that  the  bishop  was 

23  Acts  15  :  2,  6,  22,  23. 

24  Acts  21 :  18. 

25  A  contrary  inference  is  drawn  from  all  of  these  passages  (viz.  that 
TTpea^vrepos  is  an  official  title  and  ema-Konoi  is  merely  a  descriptive  one) 
by  Hort,  The  Christian  Ecdesia,  190U,  pp.  98,  99,  190  sqq.,  211  sqq. 


360  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY      •  [IV 

chosen  on  principle  from  the  ranks  of  the  elders.^^  We 
have  now  to  inquire,  What  significance  has  this  fact  for 
the  character  of  the  bishop's  office  ? 

The  question  is  this :  Does  the  bishop  belong  to  the 
charismatic  organization  of  the  Church,  and  what  is  his 
charisma  ?  It  is  now  evident  that  we  may  resolve  this 
question  into  another  form  which  admits  of  a  readier 
answer :  Have  the  ciders  a  charisma,  and  what  is  it  ? 
For  not  only  are  the  bishops  chosen  from  the  ranks  of 
the  elders,  but  the  qualifications  required  of  a  bishop 
are  no  other  than  those  which  constitute  an  elder 
indeed. 

That  the  elders  were  regarded  as  charismatically 
endowed,  admits  of  no  doubt.  For  the  charisma  is 
the  necessary  expression  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which 
dwells  in  the  believer.  Every  Christian  must  have 
his  own  particular  gift,  his  own  individual  contribution 
to  the  perfection  of  the  body  of  which  he  is  a  member. 
There  are  consequently  ''  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the 
same  Spirit."  Some  gifts  appear  more  useful,  some 
more  honorable  than  others ;  but  all  are  necessary 
to  the  body,  and  God  hath  so  tempered  the  body  to- 
gether that  he  hath  given  more  abundant  honor  to 
that  which  lacked  honor,  i.  e.  to  the  members  which 
perform  the  lowly,  serviceable  functions  of  the  body. 
These  gifts  {charismata)  are  too  various  to  be  com- 
pletely enumerated,  and  too  individual  to  be  classified 
in  detail.  But  we  may  distinguish  broadly  between 
the  gift  of  teaching  in  its  various  sorts ;  and  the  gift 
of  ministry,  the  practical  exercise  and  proof  of  Chris- 
tian character,  which  is  at  least  no  less   various  in  its 

26  In  note  67  on  p.  107  Sohui  remarks  on  various  exceptions  to  this 
rule  in  a  later  age,  but  he  adduces  many  interesting  instances  of  the 
observance  of  the  rule  iu  the  second  and  third  centuries. 


§  21]  BISHOPS  361 

manifestations.^^  The  teaching  gift  is  the  highest  in 
Christendom  :  those  that  possess  it  are  "  the  honored  " 
members  of  the  Church.  But  the  practical  gifts  of 
ministry  are  no  less  necessary  to  the  body  of  Christ ; 
and  it  is  one  of  the  most  characteristic  features  of 
Christianity  that  service  (ministry)  is  exalted,  while 
mastery  is  abased. ^^  It  is  thus  that  God  gives  to  the 
uncomely  parts  more  abundant  honor. 

We  have  already  seen  that  it  was  not  the  teaching 
gift  that  constituted  the  equipment  for  the  episcopate : 
the  episcopate  must  accordingly  rest  upon  the  other 
charisma,  the  gift  of  loving  ministry,  —  and  this  all 
the  more  because,  next  to  the  presidency  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, the  care  of  the  poor  constituted  the  bishop's  most 
important  function.  Here  lies  the  significance  of  the 
fact  that  the  bishop  was  chosen  on  principle  from 
among  the  elders.  The  characteristics  which  dis- 
tinguished the  "  elders  indeed "  were  precisely  those 
which  were  required  of  the  bishop.  The  charisma  of 
the  elder  is  the  gift  of  proving  a  practical  and  con- 
sistent Christianity.  How  high  a  gift !  The  qualities 
which  are   required   of   all   Christians   are   manifested 

2'^  The  wJiole  of  Rom.  12  :  6-21  is  intended  as  an  illustration  of  the 
diversity  of  gifts  mentioned  in  v.  6.  Even  in  vv.  6-8  (which  alone,  ac- 
cording to  the  common  notion,  are  supposed  to  exhaust  this  theme) 
■we  find  not  only  gifts  of  teaching  mentioned  (viz.  prophecy,  teaching, 
exhortation),  but  the  gift,  if  we  may  so  call  it,  of  practical  Christianity, 
—  zealous  ministry,  liberal  giving,  diligence  in  fulfilling  the  functions  of 
presidency  (jrpo'icrTdjxevos) ,  showing  mercy  with  cheerfulness.  Following 
this  we  find,  among  other  practical  manifestations  of  Christian  character, 
love  without  hypocrisy,  diligence  in  business,  patience  in  tribulation, 
steadfastness  in  prayer,  communicating  to  the  necessities  of  the  saints, 
given  to  hospitality,  etc. 

28  Compare  especially  Luke  22 :  26,  27.  Cf.  also  1  Cor.  16  :  15,  16, 
"  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  (ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanas,  that  it 
is  the  first-fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  laid  themselves  out  to  min- 
ister unto  the  saints),  that  ye  also  be  in  subjection  unto  such,  and  to  every 
one  that  helpeth  in  the  work  and  laboreth." 


362  THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

in  an  extraordinary  degree  in  the  elders,  who  besides 
have  proved  the  steadfastness  of  their  character  by  a 
long  life  in  Christ.  The  elders  therefore  have  an 
extraordinary  measure  of  the  Spirit :  hence  they  are 
reckoned  among  the  "  spiritual  "  and  enjoy  an  eminence 
in  the  Church  like  that  of  the  teachers. 

In  the  second  century  and  earlier  we  find  other 
persons  in  the  Church  who  rank  with  the  presbyters 
and  resemble  them  in  character,  namely,  the  widows, 
the  ascetics,  and  the  martyrs  (confessors).  They  too 
are  distinguished  for  the  practical  proof  of  their  Chris- 
tianity. In  the  second  and  third  centuries  the  bishops 
were  drawn  from  the  ascetics  and  martyrs  just  as  they 
were  from  the  presbyters  —  indeed  the  former  were 
preferred."^  The  bishop  is  chosen  from  among  the 
spiritual  persons  of  the  community.  When  the  as- 
sembly lacks  a  man  who  is  distinguished  for  the  gift 
of  teaching  (a  ''  spiritual "  in  the  highest  sense),  then 
another  spiritual  disciple  takes  his  place,  according  to 
his  rank  in  the  assembly,  to  preside  over  the  Eucharist 
and  administer  God's  property, — namely,  a  martyr, 
or  an  ascetic,  or  —  and  this  is  the  rule  —  an  elder. 
Such  is  the  origin  of  the  episcopate. 

Ascetics  and  martyrs  are  not  always  to  be  found 
in  the  assembly,  any  more  than  apostles,  prophets,  and 
teachers ;  but  presbyters  in  the  sense  above  defined 
there  must  be  in  every  congregation  which  has  been 
some  time  established,  —  if  indeed  it  deserves  the 
name  of  a  Church. 

The  gift  which  serves  to  single  out  the  bishop  is 
the  gift  of  love ;  yet,  as  has  been  already  shown,  he 
is  called  to  exercise  an  office  which  requires  on  prin- 
ciple the  teaching   gift.     He  performs  the  service   of 

-^  For  instances  see  Sohm,  p.  110,  notes  71,  72. 


§  21]  BISHOPS  363 

the  "  prophets  and  teachers."  How  is  that  to  be 
explained  ? 

It  is  impossible  to  think  of  a  genuine  gift  of  teaching 
which  is  not  combined  with  a  practical  manifestation 
of  Christian  character.  He  would  be  a  poor  teacher 
of  God's  word  whose  life  did  not  correspond  with 
his  precepts.  The  gift  of  teaching  must  manifest 
itself  in  conjunction  with  the  gift  of  love.  Similarly 
in  the  other  case :  the  gift  of  love  does  not  as  such 
include  the  gift  of  teaching  ;  but  one  who  has  proved 
himself  in  deed  a  true  Christian  has  naturally  a  good 
repute,  and  finds  a  ready  reception  for  his  teaching 
in  the  Church.  When  a  man  manifests  the  spirit  of 
Christ  in  his  life,  his  word  too  counts  as  an  expression 
of  the  true  Christian  spirit.  We  see  this  plainly  in 
the  case  of  the  martyrs.  Of  course  the  martyr  as  such 
had  by  no  means  a  teaching  gift ;  yet  his  word  counted 
in  the  Church  as  equivalent  to  that  of  the  prophets 
and  teachers,  because  "  Christ  is  in  him."  ^^  The  case 
of  the  elder  was  similar :  in  the  presbyter  the  spirit 
of  Christ  is  effectually  operative,  as  is  proved  by  his 
whole  life ;  and  hence  it  is  that  his  word  and  teach- 
ing have  authority  in  the  Church.  The  presbyter 
cannot  speak  with  the  authority  of  the  apostolic 
teachers,  for  he  has  not  the  apostolic  gift.  But  he 
has  the  gift  of  love,  and  that  gives  also  weight  to 
his  words. 

The  episcopal  teaching  office  is  the  opposite  of  the 
apostolical.^^     The  bishops  are  equipped  for  their  office, 

30  Cf.  above,  p.  236,  note  22. 

31  The  prescribed  formula  of  Eucharistic  prayer  is  a  consequence  of 
the  fact  that  the  bishop  was  not  equipped  with  the  gift  of  teaching,  and 
yet  had  to  perform  this  function  of  prayer  in  place  of  the  prophets  and 
teachers,  as  a  part  —  and  indeed  the  most  essential  part  —  of  the  admin- 
istration of  the  Eucharist.     The  Eucharistic  prayers  preserved  in  the 


364  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

not  by  the  teaching  gift,  in  the  specific  sense  of  the 
word,  but  by  the  gift  of  love:  they  have  not  the  gift 
which  belongs  to  the  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers ; 
yet  they  are  informed  by  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and  have 
therefore  the  vocation  and  ability  to  bear  witness  also 
by  their  word  and  teaching  to  the  nature  and  require- 
ments of  true  Christianity.  Hence  it  is  that,  when 
no  gifted  teacher  (apostle,  prophet,  teacher)  is  to  be 
found  in  the  community,  the  bishop  takes  the  place 
of  the  prophets  and  teachers ;  and  hence  it  is  too  that 
the  bishop  who  thus  appears  as  a  substitute  for  the 
prophets  and  teachers  is  chosen  from  the  ranks  of  the 
elders  (or  ascetics,  or  confessors). 

Besides  this,  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  the 
extraordinary  gift  of  teaching  which  belonged  to  the 
apostles  and  prophets  was  not  the  only  sort  of  teaching 
in  the  Church.  Alongside  of  it  there  was  a  more 
usual  sort  of  ministry  of  the  word  which  was  common 
in  a  measure  to  all  Christians.  This  has  not  the  exalted 
authority  of  the  other.  It  does  not  pretend  to  add  any 
new  teaching  or  ordinance,  but  only  to  develop  and 
apply  the  implications  of  the  word  which  has  been  re- 
ceived and  appropriated,  and  to  pass  on  the  Christian 
message  unadulterated  to  another  generation.  This  sort 
of  instruction  is  inseparable  from  the  conception  of  an 
"  elder."  By  whom  shall  the  new  converts  and  the 
younger  members  of  the  Church  be  instructed  in  the 
Christian  faith  and  in  the  Christian  life  if  not  by 
the  elders  ?     In  this  field  there  is  a  constant  need  for 

Didache  (ix.,  x.)  are  evidently  much  older  than  this  document.  These 
prayers  were  for  the  use  of  the  bishops  (men  who  did  not  possess  the 
gift  of  teaching),  and  for  the  prophets  and  teachers  it  is  expressly  pro- 
vided (x.  7)  that  they  shall  be  allowed  "  to  give  thanks  as  much  as  they 
will."  All  this  is  strikingly  in  accord  with  the  view  presented  in  the 
text.     Cf.  Sohm,  p.  113,  note  75. 


§  21]  BISHOPS  365 

instruction,  and  the  apostolic  gift  of  teaching  was  ever 
rare  in  the  Church.  It  is  evident  that  the  need  of  a 
substitute  for  the  prophets  and  teachers  was  not  first 
felt  at  the  end  of  the  second  century  when  the  charis- 
matic ministry  began  to  disappear :  it  was  an  early  and 
a  constant  need,  and  the  elders  were  ever  the  natural 
substitutes.  The  older  members  of  the  Church  —  in 
particular  the  elders  in  the  ecclesiastical  sense  —  were 
the  natural  teachers  of  the  young,  and  above  all  of 
the  catechumens.  Hence  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  we 
already  find  the  elders  exercising  this  function.  The 
elders  who  ''labor  in  word  and  in  teaching  "are  the 
older  and  more  respected  members  of  the  congregation, 
through  whom  the  catechumens  receive  their  instruc- 
tion. It  is  chiefly  in  this  way  that  they  fulfil  the  obli- 
gations of  their  presidency  (KaXws  npoea-TcoTes).  For 
this  no  prophetic  gift  is  needed,  and  no  teaching 
gift  in  the  specific  sense :  it  is  enough  that  one  be 
a  true  and  approved  Christian.  Out  of  this  common- 
Christian  sort  of  teaching,  the  instruction  of  the 
younger  by  the  elder  (think,  for  example,  of  the  cate- 
chetical school  of  Alexandria !),  has  come  our  Christian 
theology. 

From  such  elders  the  bishop  is  regularly  chosen.  The 
thought  is  that  the  bishop,  too,  has  a  vocation  to  ad- 
monish and  instruct  the  Church,  though  he  is  selected 
in  the  first  place  for  his  practical  piety  rather  than  for 
his  teaching  gifts.  So  the  episcopate  is  a  teaching 
office,  —  and  that  from  the  very  first.  In  this  function, 
as  well  as  in  the  administration  of  the  Eucharist  and  of 
Church  property,  the  bishop  appears  as  a  substitute  for 
the  apostolic  teachers.  Here  we  have  a  starting-point 
which  renders  the  whole  subsequent  history  of  the  epis- 
copate  intelligible  ;  and  at  the  same  time  we  have  a 


366  THE   ElTCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

verification  of  the  thesis  that  no  Church  government  or 
administration  can  be  thought  of  apart  from  the  minis- 
try of  the  word  (p.  238). 

The  prevailing  view  claims  that  there  was  a  double 
organization  in  the  early  Church  :  on  the  one  hand  the 
charismatic  officers  (apostles,  prophets,  teachers),  officers 
of  the  Church  at  large,  whose  function  was  teaching  : 
on  the  other  hand,  the  congregational  officers  (bishops, 
presbyters,  and  deacons),  whose  status  was  purely  a 
legal  one,  and  whose  functions  were  originally  confined 
to  government  and  administration.  We  have  seen 
reason  to  challenge  this  view  at  almost  every  point,  and 
to  modify,  if  not  out  and  out  to  deny,  the  various  an- 
titheses which  it  postulates.  It  has  already  been  shown 
that  the  antithesis  between  teaching  and  administration 
is  a  modern  one,  which  did  not  exist  at  all  for  the  early 
Church.  Here  we  see  that  such  an  antithesis  has  in 
fact  no  application  to  the  episcopate.  The  contrast  is  a 
great  one  between  the  apostle  and  the  bishop  :  it  is  not, 
however,  a  contrast  between  teaching  and  administra- 
tion, but  between  different  sorts  of  teaching.  The  char- 
ismatic officers  were  the  administrators  of  the  Church 
as  well  as  teachers  —  or  rather  because  they  were 
teachers.  The  bishops  too  were  teachers  as  part  and 
parcel  of  their  administrative  activity.  The  two  or- 
ganizations were  radically  different  with  respect  to  the 
character  of  their  equipment,  but  their  functions  were 
the  same,  the  lower  ministry  being  designed  to  serve  in 
its  measure  as  a  substitute  for  the  higher. 

The  distinction  between  charisinatic  and  legal  equally 
fails  to  characterize  the  point  of  difference  between  the 
apostolic  ministry  and  the  episcopate.  The  election 
and  ordination  of  the  bishop  had  no  other  significance 
than  the  election  and  ordination  of  an  apostle  or  an 


§  21]  BISHOPS  367 

evangelist.  The  bishop  had  no  legal  right  to  the  admin-  ^  y^ 
istration  of  the  Eucharist,  any  more  than  had  the  apos-  ; 
tie  or  prophet.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  ' 
bishop  had  to  give  place  to  any  charismatic  officer  that 
might  be  present  in  the  assembly .^^  Nor  might  he  as- 
sert a  legal  claim  to  the  privileges  of  his  office,  even 
when  no  representative  of  this  higher  ministry  was  pres- 
ent. This  is  not  to  say  that  the  Christian  communi- 
ties were  under  no  moral  obligation  to  reverence,  obey, 
and  cherish  their  officers  (whether  apostles  and  prophets^ 
or  bishops),  and  to  continue  them^  in  the  office  which 
they  worthily  exercise.  This  is  substantially  the  posi- 
tion maintained  by  St.  Clement  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians.  He  does  not  affirm  that  even  the  orderly 
appointment  of  the  bishops  by  the  apostles  (or,  in  turn, 
by  the  apostles'  appointees)  gave  them  a  legal  claim  upon 
their  office  ;  but  he  affirms  that  on  the  part  of  the  congrega- 
tion it  would  be  no  light  sin  to  thrust  out  those  who  had 
worthily  exercised  the  functions  of  their  episcopate. 
Unlike  Sohm,  who  regards  this  letter  as  a  presage, 
if  not  an  expression  of  the  Catholic  notion  of  the 
ministry,  I  can  find  here  no  hint  of  Catholic  legality. 

32  Sohm  (pp.  116,  119)  adds,  that  where  there  were  several  bishops 
in  one  Church  no  one  of  them  could  claim  an  exclusive  right  over  the 
Eucharist.  This  may  be  a  correct  inference  from  the  plurality  of 
bishops;  but,  for  my  part,  I  find  it  difficult  to  conceive  that  sucli  a  state 
of  affairs  could  have  existed  without  disorder.  The  bishop's  principal 
function  (the  presidency  of  the  Eucharist)  was  one  which  could  neither 
be  shared,  nor  exercised  at  one  time  by  the  whole  body  of  bishops  in 
common :  if  several  officers  were  recognized  as  equally  authorized  to  per- 
form this  function  in  the  same  assembly,  they  must  have  presided  in 
rotation;  and  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  any  plan  of  rotation  which 
would  not  involve  serious  inconveniences.  If  such  an  arrangement  ever 
existed,  it  was  certainly  not  conducive  to  settled  order,  and  it  was  evi- 
dently not  destined  to  last.  It  seems  to  me  more  probable  that  the  plu- 
rality of  bishops  corresponded  to  a  plurality  of  assemblies,  which  were 
more  or  less  definitely  distinguished. 


368  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

This  is  no  more  than  must  have  been  affirmed  from 
the  earliest  days  of  the  Church,  if  peace  and  order 
were  to  be  maintained  in  the  body  of  Christ.  A 
serious  fallacy  —  and  one  which  has  long  passed  un- 
challenged as  an  axiom  —  asserts  that  every  duty  im- 
plies a  corresponding  right.  This  is  true  only  within 
the  sphere  of  positive  law  :  duties  which  the  legislator 
defines  express  at  the  same  time  corresponding  rights. 
Outside  this  sphere  we  can  form  no  definite  conception 
of  rights,  and  it  is  never  profitable  to  consider  them. 
Conscience  tells  us  nothing  about  rights,  it  knows  only 
of  personal  duties,  and  on  this  subject  it  speaks  directly 
and  imperatively.  To  imagine  that  the  duty  exacted 
by  conscience  presupposes  as  its  logical  jjrius,  as  the 
very  reason  and  ground  of  its  existence,  a  right  which 
may  be  claimed  by  another,  is  to  misinterpret  the 
character  of  conscience,  and  to  ignore  an  important 
psychological  fact.  I  may  feel  it  my  duty  to  share 
my  cloak  with  the  beggar,  but  nothing  will  so  soon  dry 
up  the  springs  of  compassion  as  to  find  the  beggar  de- 
manding the  half  of  my  cloak  as  his  right.  I  suppose 
that  the  Corinthian  congregation  might  be  admonished 
as  to  its  duties  towards  the  bishops,  without  implying 
on  the  part  of  the  latter  a  right  to  claim  undisturbed 
possession  of  their  privileges.  But  at  all  events,  their 
rights,  if  rights  they  had,  were  not  legal,  but  moral 
rights. 

My  interpretation  of  the  character  of  the  episcopal 
office  excludes,  more  thoroughly  even  than  does  that  of 
Sohm,  the  notion  of  an  episcopal  college.  So  far  as  I 
am  aware,  every  one  except  Sohm  assumes  as  a  matter 
of  course  that  the  several  bishops  in  a  community  con- 
stituted a  college  or  committee  for  the  administration 


§  21]  BISHOPS  3G9 

of  Church  affairs.^  It  is  assumed  that  the  "  bishops  " 
mentioned  in  our  sources  signify  of  course  a  college  of 
bishops.  As  though  these  two  conceptions  were  equiva- 
lent !  Why  this  common  delusion  ?  Simply  because 
every  one  assumes  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the 
organization  of  the  Church  was  a  legal  organization. 
Given  a  plurality  of  bishops  in  the  same  congregation, 
it  may  well  be  thought  that  we  must  conceive  of  them 
as  constituting  a  corporate  body,  a  college,  or  com- 
mittee, if  we  are  to  suppose  that  there  was  any  unity 
of  administration,  any  closed  and  compact  form  of  legal 
organization.  But  this  conception  is  one  for  which  we 
have  not  a  shred  of  evidence  in  our  sources.  It  stands 
indeed  in  the  sharpest  contradiction  to  primitive  princi- 
ples, and,  so  far  from  explaining  the  early  constitution 
of  the  Church,  it  involves  us  in  the  greatest  difficulties. 
If  at  the  head  of  the  congregation  there  was  a  "  college 
of  bishops,"  how  is  it  possible  to  explain  the  transforma- 
tion of  this  college  into  the  single  bishop  of  the  sub- 
sequent age  ?  Indeed,  how  is  it  possible  to  introduce 
the  notion  of  a  college  into  the  sphere  of  primitive 
Christian  thought  ?  Had  the  "  college  of  bishops " 
any  charisma  ?  Was  it  divinely  endowed  and  equipped 
for  any  ministry  in  Christendom  ?     Can  we  even  call  it 

33  Sohm,  in  note  78  to  p.  116,  cites  the  views  of  Hatch,  Loning, 
Harnack,  Weizsacker,  etc.,  to  this  effect.  He  remarks  at  the  end  of  this 
note,  that,  on  the  basis  of  this  assumption  of  a  collegial  body  at  the  head 
of  the  Church,  the  development  of  the  monarchical  episcopate  is  gener- 
ally so  explained  as  to  attribute  to  the  "president"  of  this  group  (the 
"  first  of  the  bishops,"  as  Weizsacker  calls  him)  the  same  role  as  that  of 
a  president  in  a  repubhc  who  is  on  the  way  to  acquire  royal  power  and 
prerogative.  He  observes  that  this  construction  of  history  is  as  old  as 
Jerome ;  but  he  affirms  justly  that  as  yet  no  one  has  been  able  to  give 
a  comprehensible  account  of  such  a  process,  —  not  to  speak  of  a  clear 
conception  of  such  a  development.  The  remainder  of  this  paragraph 
I  translate  almost  literally  from  Sohm,  p.  117. 

24 


370  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

a  member  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  Impossible  !  The 
mere  fact  that  the  "  college  of  bishops"  is  not  a  Chris- 
tian, not  a  person  at  all  in  a  real  sense,  but  only  as  a 
legal  fiction ;  that  as  a  corporation  it  can  possess  no 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (for  they  are  personal  gifts) ; 
is  enough  to  prove  that  the  "  college  of  bishops  "  has  no 
place  in  the  primitive  organization  which  was  founded 
upon  the  charisma;  — and  no  more  had  the  "  college  of 
elders,"  or  the  "college  of  apostles."  In  pre-Catholic 
Christendom  colleges  can  possess  no  sort  of  authority  or 
function,  because  they  lack  the  charisma,  which  is  the 
presupposition  for  every  activity  in  and  for  the  Church. 
How  is  it  possible  to  attribute  to  such  a  representative 
council,  administrative  board,  or  college,  a  legal  author- 
ity which  the  whole  local  assembly  of  Christians  as  such 
(that  is,  as  a  corporation)  does  not  possess  ?  What  any 
assembly  is  empowered  to  do,  it  can  do  only  as  an 
assembly  of  the  whole  of  Christendom  (pp.  138  sq.), 
and  even  in  this  character  it  can  itself  perform  no 
service  for  the  Kingdom  of  God  (and  so  neither  teach 
nor  govern),  but  only  testify  by  its  concordant  witness 
that  in  the  personal  activity  of  the  individual  God's 
gifts  are  truly  and  effectually  manifested.  The  charisma 
is  never  given  to  an  assembly,  not  even  to  the  assembly 
of  Christendom  (the  hody  of  Christ),  but  only  to  the 
individual  Christians  (the  meAiibers  of  Christ),  and  that 
for  the  purpose  of  edifying  the  body  of  Christ,  —  to 
comfort  and  establish  the  Church,  to  teach,  guide,  and 
rule  it. 

For  this  reason  the  Church  organization  of  primitive 
times  was  apt  to  produce  a  'monarchical  form  of  govern- 
ment, when  a  legal  constitution  came  about.  For  the 
same  reason,  in  pre-Catholic  times,  every  assembly  as 
such,  the  assembly  of  the  congregation  as  well  as  the 


§  22]  DEACONS  371 

assembly  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  was  excluded  from 
all  authority  to  teach  or  govern  in  its  own  right.  There 
could  be  neither  a  democratic  regiment  of  the  congre- 
gational assembly,  nor  an  aristocratic  regiment  repre- 
sented by  the  "  college  "  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in 
the  sense  of  the  traditional  view.  Indeed,  there  can 
be  no  such  organization  of  the  Ecclesia  —  now  or  ever. 
The  election  of  bishops  was  only  a  step  towards 
the  legal  organization  of  the  Church.  Christianity 
.was  not  legally  defined,  there  was  still  no  congrega- 
tion with  legal  organization,  so  long  as  every  assembly 
was  regarded  as  an  assembly  of  Christendom  —  uhi 
tres,  ihi  ecclesia  —  whether  a  bishop  was  present  or  not, 
and  was  consequently  deemed  capable  of  performing 
every  function  of  the  Ecclesia,  including  Baptism  and 
the  Eucharist,  election  and  ordination.  The  principal 
assembly  enjoyed  no  exclusive  authority :  it  had  a  de 
facto  preponderance  merely.  It  was  first  the  thesis  of 
Ignatius  which  was  designed  to  change  all  this,  seeking 
to  establish,  —  not  the  episcopate,  nor  even  the  single 
episcopate,  for  this  already  existed,  but  —  an  exclu- 
sive congregational  system.  The  sentence  of  Ignatius 
sounded  :  without  the  bishop  and  the  presbytery  and 
the  deacons  —  that  is,  apart  from  the  organized  prin- 
cipal assembly  —  there  is  no  Ecclesia. 

§  22,  DEACONS 

The  word  hiaKovia  is  used  broadly  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  indicate  any  service  rendered  to  the  Church  ;  — 
it  describes  the  service  even  of  an  apostle  or  of  a  bishop.^ 

1  The  apostolate  is  called  a  8iaKovia  (e.  g.  in  Rom.  11:13;  1  Cor. 
3  :  5)  as  well  as  an  eiria-KOTrri  (Acts  1 :  17,  20).  In  Acts  6  :  2,  4  the  apos- 
tolic diaconia  of  the  word  is  contrasted  with  the  more  material  service 
—  the  diaconia  of  tables  —  to  which  tlie  Seven  were  appointed.     Espe- 


372  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

It  denotes,  however,  more  particularly  the  subordinate 
service  of  the  deacon. 

Like  the  episcopal  office,  the  office  of  deacon  owed 
its  existence  to  the  Eucharist.  In  this  relation  the 
bishop's  function  was  that  of  presidency,  the  deacon's 
that  of  service,  —  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word. 
The  bishop's  office  in  each  assembly  was  consequently 
occupied  by  a  single  individual,  while  the  number  of 
deacons  was  indefinite.  Hence  in  1  Tim.  3  :  2  it  was 
natural  to  speak  of  "  the  bishop  "  in  the  singular,  and 
equally  natural  to  speak  of  the  "  deacons  "  in  the  plu- 
ral {v.  8).  The  deacon's  service  was  a  menial  one, 
particularly  while  the  Eucharist  was  associated  with 
the  agape.  But  all  service  was  accounted  honorable 
in  the  Church  and  recognized  as  a  ground  of  personal 
honor  and  authority.  Moreover  the  deacon's  service  at 
the  Eucharistic  feast  carried  with  it  important  practical 
duties  outside  the  assembly,  especially  the  duty  of  assist- 
ing  the  bishop  in  the  distribution  of  the  Church  prop- 
erty.^ We  may  suppose  that  where  there  were  several 
bishops  in  a  community,  each  had  his  own  proper  dea- 
cons. The  relation  of  the  bishop  to  his  deacons  was  a 
very  close  one.  It  was  a  relation  of  personal  trust  and 
fidelity.    The  deacon's  service  was  rendered  to  his  bishop 

cially  significant  is  the  use  of  the  word  in  1  Cor.  16  :  15,  where  the 
diaconia  which  Stephanas  and  his  household  have  laid  themselves  out  to 
render  to  the  Church,  is  accounted  a  ground  for  holding  them  in  superior 
honor.  The  episcopate,  too,  is  a  diaconia  (Hernias,  Shn.  ix.  27 :  the 
bisliops  help  the  needy  rfi  biaKoviq.  eavrcbv.  Ignatius,  Philad.  1 :  the  bishop 
has  "the  ministry  of  the  common  weal."  Euseb.  H.  E.  Y.  1 :  29 :  "the 
diaconia  of  the  episcopate ").  Cf .  Hort,  The  Christian  Ecclesia,  pp. 
202  sqq.,  for  an  interesting  discussion  of  this  word. 

2  1  Clem,  ad  Cor.  44 :  because  the  apostles  foresaw  the  strife  over  the 
episcopate  (that  is,  the  administration  of  the  Eucharist,  bapa  ivpoa^epeLv), 
they  appointed  bishops  and  deacons  (rovs  TrpoeipTjpevovs.  cf.  c.  42  :  4)  and 
made  over  to  them  for  their  lifetime  the  iirivopr],  i.  e.  the  administration 
(distribution)  of  the  offerings,  — c£.  p.  332,  note  3. 


§  22]  DEACONS  373 

personally,  as  well  as  to  the  Church.^  This  close  associ- 
ation with  the  bishop  is  one  of  the  factors  which  account 
for  the  ever  increasing  influence  and  importance  of  the 
deacons.  They  advanced  in  dignity  j(;«njt>as5i^  with  the 
bishop,  and  it  even  became  a  question,  in  the  second 
century  and  later,  whether  deacons  or  presbyters  were 
the  more  considerable  officers. 

At  first,  while  the  Eucharist  and  the  agape  were 
united,  the  deacons  alone  stood  and  ministered,  while 
all  the  disciples  sat  at  the  table  with  the  bishop  and 
the  presbyters  who  presided  with  him.  The  subsequent 
development  which  separated  the  people  from  the  Holy 
Table,  at  which  the  bishop  and  presbyters  alone  con- 
tinued to  sit,  could  not  fail  to  enhance  the  dignity  of 
the  deacons ;  for  though  they  continued  to  stand  as 
before,  they  nevertheless  were  reckoned  among  those 
that  enjoyed  a  place  of  privilege  at  the  altar,  —  the 
clergy  as  they  were  later  called. 

The  service  which  the  deacons  rendered  at  the  Eu- 
charistic  feast  is  one  which  must  have  been  needed 
from  the  beginning,  just  as  a  president  of  the  feast 
was  required  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  But  the 
office  of  deacon  appears  to  have  originated  contempo- 
raneously with  the  episcopate.  The  deacons  are  first 
mentioned  in  Phil.  1  :  1,  which  is  also  the  earliest 
passage  that  refers  to  bishops.  The  bishops,  who  are 
mentioned  first,  are  evidently  the  superior  officers. 
The  diaconate  is  an  adjunct  of  the  episcopate.  Hence 
in  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  where  the  appointment  of 
both  bishops  and  deacons  is  spoken  of  (c.  42),  we  hear 

2  Hence  the  warm  tone  in  which  Ignatius  speaks  of  his  a-vvhovkoi  (e.  g. 
in  Ephes.  2,  Magn.  2)  and  iyioi  yXvKvraToi  (Magn.  6).  —  For  the  various 
offices  which  the  deacons  performed  as  the  bishop's  helpers  both  in  the 
assembly  and  without  it,  see  Sohm,  p.  127,  note  25. 


374  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

only  of  "  a  strife  over  the  episcopate  "  (c.  44),  not  of  a 
strife  over  the  diaconate.  And  hence,  too,  the  deacon 
is  sometimes  ignored  in  speaking  of  apj)ointment  to 
Church  offices.*  But  in  general  bishops  and  deacons 
are  mentioned  together.  In  the  Didache  (xv.)  deacons 
as  well  as  bishops  are  said  to  "  perform  the  service 
of  the  prophets  and  teachers"  {i.  e.  the  administration 
of  the  Eucharist  and  the  Church  property),  and  to  de- 
serve the  same  "  honor  "  in  the  Church  as  these  charis- 
matic officers.  From  this  it  appears  that  the  deacons 
were  not  chosen  from  among  the  gifted  teachers,  but 
were,  like  the  bishops,  appointed  as  substitutes  for 
them.^ 

The  fact  that  the  deacons  shared  to  a  lars-e  extent 
the  functions  which  the  bishop  exercised,  explains  the 

4  Acts  14  :  23 ;  Titus  1  :  5,  7. 

s  Sohm  remarks  that  this  fact  confutes  the  widely  current  notion 
which  sees  the  pattern  and  origin  of  the  diaconate  in  the  Seven  who 
were  appointed  in  the  early  days  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  to  "serve 
tables  "  (Acts  6 : 1  sqq.).  For  the  Seven  were  men  who  were  distinguished 
for  the  apostolic  teaching  gift  —  "  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  — 
whereas  the  deacons  were  substitutes  for  the  gifted  teachers.  Furthermore, 
nothing  is  said  in  the  Acts  of  any  subordination  of  the  Seven  to  the 
apostles  in  the  matter  of  administering  the  gifts,  whereas  the  deacons 
appear  from  first  to  last  as  mere  helpers  of  the  bishops.  The  first  ex- 
press notice  we  have  of  this  interpretation  is  in  Cyprian  (ep.  168)  and 
the  Canons  of  Hippolytus  (v.  §  39) ;  but  it  is  implied  in  the  practice  of 
the  Roman  Church,  which  from  the  third  century  onward  persisted  in 
limiting  the  number  of  deacons  to  seven.  According  to  Harnack,  Texte 
II.  .5,  p.  92,  note  70,  p.  97,  note  88,  the  subdiaconate  was  established  at 
Rome  in  the  third  or  fourth  decade  of  the  third  century,  which  proves 
that  the  interpretation  which  regarded  the  Seven  as  the  original  deacons, 
flourished,  in  Rome  at  least,  before  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Ap- 
parently this  theory  of  the  Seven  hangs  together  with  the  theory  of  the 
apostolical  succession  of  the  bishops.  If  the  Roman  bishop  were  the 
successor  of  the  apostles  (Peter  and  Paul),  the  Roman  deacons,  too, 
must  be  successors  of  the  Seven  who  were  appointed  by  the  apostles  as 
their  helpers.  Thus  the  Roman  Church  reflected  precisely  the  apostolic 
order  of  government !  Sohm  remarks  that  we  have  no  notice  of  a 
similar   Roman  theory  of  the  presbyterate. 


§22]  DEACONS  375 

requisition  of  substantially  the  same  qualifications  in 
both.^  Both  are  engaged  in  the  administration  of  the 
Eucharist  and  of  the  Church  property/ 

Yet  the  deacons  do  not  share  in  all  the  bishop's  func- 
tions —  e.  g.  that  of  presidency,  —  and  even  where  the 
functions  are  the  same  the  bishop  and  the  deacons 
stand  in  different  relations  to  them.  Hence  the  qualifi- 
cations of  the  two  are  not  in  all  points  the  same.  The 
bishop  was  a  superior  officer,  he  it  was  who  represented 
the  Church  in  dealings  with  those  that  are  without ;  and 


^  The  Epistle  of  Clement  sums  up  the  qualifications  of  both  bishops 
and  deacons  in  the  general  requisition  that  they  be  "  approved  "  men ; 
and  so  too  the  Didache  demands  of  both  alike  that  they  be  "  worthy  of 
the  Lord,  gentle,  not  lovers  of  money,  true  and  approved."  Cf.  p.  342, 
note  13.  The  other  sources  mention  the  qualifications  of  the  deacons 
separately,  yet  substantially  in  the  same  terms.  The  third  century  source 
of  Apost.  Const.  III.  c.  15  states  expressly  that  the  deacons  shall  be  like 
the  bishops,  "only  more  sturdy,"  —  as  those  that  have  to  be  the  medium 
of  the  bishop  in  much  of  his  intercourse  with  the  members  of  his 
congregation. 

"•  1  Tim.  3  :  8,  12,  "  Deacons  in  like  manner  must  be  grave,  not  double- 
tongued,  not  given  to  much  wine,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre.  Let 
deacons  be  husbands  of  one  wife,  niling  their  children  and  their  houses 
well."  Polycarp,  ad  Phil.  5,  substantially  repeats  these  requirements 
(except  the  last),  adding  that  the  deacon  must  be  "temperate  in  all 
things,  compassionate,  diligent."  Source  A  of  Apost.  Church  Order,  c.  4, 
"  They  shall  be  approved  in  every  service,  well  reputed  in  the  congrega- 
tion, living  with  one  wife,  taking  care  of  their  children,  prudent,  gentle, 
quiet,  not  murraurers,  not  double-tongued,  not  inclined  to  anger,  not 
accepting  the  persons  of  the  rich,  nor  oppressing  the  poor,  not  using 
much  wine,  active,  encouraging  ably  to  the  hidden  works,  in  that  they 
oblige  the  well-to-do  among  the  brethren  to  open  their  hands,  themselves 
also  liberal,  sympathetic,  honored  by  the  people  of  the  congregation  with 
all  honor  and  reverence  and  fear,  giving  diligent  heed  to  them  that 
behave  unruly,  admonishing  some,  exhorting  others,  etc."  Source  B  of 
Apost.  Church  Order,  c.  6,  "  Deacons,  workers  of  good  works,  watching 
everywhere  day  and  night,  neither  despising  the  poor  nor  accepting  the 
person  of  the  rich,  shall  know  the  afflicted  and  not  exclude  them  from 
a  share  in  the  Church  collections,  but  they  shall  oblige  the  people  of 
means  to  lay  up  treasure  unto  good  works,  having  in  mind  the  words 
of  our  Teacher  :  '  Thou  sawest  me  an  hungered  and  fed  me  not. '  " 


376  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

by  his  conduct  the  Church  itself  was  likely  to  be  judged. 
The  same  was  not  true  of  the  deacon.^  The  high  office 
of  bishop  can  easily  lead  to  pride,  and  hence  no  novice 
must  be  appointed  :  whereas  in  the  case  of  the  deacon  no 
such  precept  is  given,^  because  no  such  danger  attached 
to  their  office. 

The  bishop  must  have  a  certain  capacity  for  teaching 
and  exhortation,^'^  but  no  such  requirement  is  made 
of  the  deacon.  The  character  of  the  service  which  the 
deacon  rendered  (in  the  earlier  time  especially)  seems 
to  demand  that  he  be  chosen  from  the  younger  members 
of  the  Church,  while  the  bishop  was  chosen  from  among 
the  "  elders,"  the  honorables  and  natural  leaders  of  the 
community."  It  is  expressly  provided,  however,  that 
the  deacon  who  approves  himself  in  his  position  may 
hope  to  attain  later  the  higher  rank  of  bishop.^ 


12 


8  The  bishop  "  must  have  good  testimony  from  them  that  are  without " 
(1  Tim.  3:7);  he  must  have  "  a  good  reputation  among  the  heathen  " 
(Source  A  of  Apost.  Ch.  O.);  whereas  it  is  required  of  the  deacon 
merely  that  he  be  "  well  reputed  by  the  people  of  the  congregation  "  — 
irapa  tov  irkTjdovs. 

9  1  Tim.  3  :  6  sqq. 

10  1  Tim.  3:2;  Titus  1 :  9. 

■  11  While  Source  A  of  the  Apost.  Ch.  Order  desires  that  the  bishop  be 
either  unmarried  or  "a  widower  of  one  wife,"  it  is  required  of  deacons 
that  they  be  /ioi/dya/noi.  Apparently  the  bishop  is  regarded  as  the  elder 
of  the  two  —  likely  already  widowed ;  while  the  deacon  is  supposed  to 
be  living  still  in  the  married  state.  In  1  Tim.  3  :  2, 12  it  is  required  of  the 
bishop  and  deacon  alike  that  they  be  "the  husband  of  one  wife";  but 
only  of  the  bishop  is  it  said  that  he  must  be  "no  neophyte."  The 
passage  cited  above  in  note  6  from  the  Apost.  Const,  requires  that  the 
deacon  shall  be  like  the  bishop,  "  only  more  sturdy." 

1-  This  notice,  so  highly  significant  for  the  nature  of  the  diaconate, 
is  found  in  1  Tim.  3  :  13,  "  For  they  that  have  served  well  as  deacons  gain 
for  themselves  a  good  degree"  (^adiiov),  and  in  Source  B  of  the  Apost. 
Ch.  Order,  c.  6,  "For  they  that  have  served  well  and  blamelessly  as 
deacons  gain  for  themselves  the  pastoral  place"  (tottov  t6v  iroifieviKov) . 
On  this  see  Harnack,  Texte  II.  5,  p.  26,  note  15;  and  Holtzmann,  Pastoral- 
briefe,  pp.  240,  323. 


§  22]  DEACONS  377 

Sohm  calls  attention  to  a  fact  of  singular  importance 
which  has  lately  been  recognized  by  several  German 
scholars,  viz.  that  the  deacon  had  to  pass  through  a 
loeriod  of  probation}^  It  is  not  possible  to  think  of 
such  a  requirement  in  the  case  of  the  bishop,  —  any 
more  than  in  the  case  of  apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers. 
The  bishop  must  be  an  "  approved  "  man,  and  the 
prophet  an  "  approved  "  prophet ;  ^^  but  the  proving 
that  is  here  contemplated  consists  merely  in  an  opinion 
passed  upon  the  previous  character  of  the  man  and  his 
actual  attainments,  —  an  opinion  which  is  established 
by  the  divine  testimony,  through  prophecy.  The  deacon, 
too,  is  called  through  prophecy.^^  His  standing  also 
is  determined  by  the  proof  of  his  antecedent  character 
and  conduct.     But  for  him  a  further  proof  is  required 

^3  This  is  indicated  in  1  Tim.  3:10, — koI  avroi  Se  (the  deacons, — 
the  8e  expresses  the  contrast  with  the  bishops,  to  whom  the  same  rule  is 
not  applied)  SoKifia^ecrdcocrav  TrpaiTov,  flra  SiaKoveiTaxrav  dveyKXrjTot,  ovrei-  Cf. 
Holtzmann,  Pastoralhriefe.  p.  240.  A  period  of  probation  is  clearly  ex- 
pressed in  the  nparov,  elra.  In  Source  A  of  the  Apost.  Ch.  Order,  c.  4, 
it  is  said  of  the  deacons :  ea-Tuxrav  SeBoKifiaa-fievoi  nudT]  8iaKovla,  —  i.  e.  it  is 
expressly  required  that  before  their  final  appointment  they  must  have 
been  active  in  every  sort  of  ministry  belonging  to  the  diaconate.  So 
here  likewise  a  probation  is  prescribed. 

1*  Cf.  above,  p.  342,  note  13.  Didache,  xi.  11,  tto?  8e  Trpo(j)r]Tr]s  8e8oKi- 
p.a(Tp,'evos-  In  the  appointment  of  the  bishop,  too,  a  dokimasia  is  neces- 
sary (Source  A  of  Apost.  Ch.  Order,  c.  1,  BoKifiaa-^  doKifidaravres  top  a^iov 
ovra),  but  not  in  the  form  of  a  probation. 

15  1  Clem.  42 :  the  apostles  appointed  bishops  and  deacons,  SoKt/xa- 
a-avTts  Tw  rrvevfiaTi.  Clemens  Alex.  Quis  dives  salvetur,  c.  42  :  (the  Apostle 
John)  "  here  appointing  bishops,  and  there  organizing  whole  Churches, 
and  in  another  place  electing  to  the  clerus  one  and  another  of  those  who 
were  indicated  by  the  Spirit."  These  last  must  be  presbyters  and  deacons, 
since  the  bishops  have  been  already  mentioned.  We  must  assume  that 
in  this  case  as  usual  the  appointment  through  prophecy  required  the 
assent  of  the  congregation  as  a  witness  to  its  genuineness  (cf.  1  Clem. 
44  :  3,  avvfvtoKrjadarrjs  rrji  eKKXrjaias  ndayjs;  and  Source  A  of  Apost.  Ch. 
Order,  c.  4,  pey.apTvpT]fxfvoi.  irapd  tov  irKrfdovs).  For  this  reason  the  people 
continued  as  late  as  the  third  century  to  participate  even  in  the  con- 
ferring of  minor  orders,  —  cf.  note  16. 


378  THE    EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

during  a  period  of  probation. ^*^  His  appointment  de- 
notes that  he  is  put  on  trial,  and  only  when  he  has  ap- 
proved himself  in  the  exercise  of  his  diaconate  does  he 
earn  fully  the  office  and  honor  of  a  deacon.  This  implies 
that  the  deacon  is  regarded  as  a  person  in  the  process 
of  development.  The  bishop  is  a  mature  man  ("  elder  "  ), 
already  long  approved,  the  deacon  is  still  immature  (one 
of  the  "  younger  "  ),  who  needs  to  be  further  tested,  and 
who  just  for  that  reason  is  called  to  a  position  of  sub- 
ordinate service.  It  implies  further  that  the  diaconate 
is  not  regarded  merely  as  a  service,  but  at  the  same 
time  as  a  school  for  persons  who  are  in  the  process  of 
development.  In  rendering  his  subordinate  service,  the 
deacon  has  at  the  same  time  an  opportunity  to  exercise 
and  cultivate  his  own  spiritual  charisma,  and  with 
ripened  gifts  he  may  himself  become  fitted  for  the  epis- 
copate. In  a  word,  the  ordines  minores  of  the  future  are 
adumbrated  in  the  diaconate.  This  is  true  as  well  of 
the  form  of  induction  (through  probation),  as  of  the 
nature  of  the  office  :  the  diaconate  is  a  call  to  purely 
subordinate  and  ministerial  functions,  and  yet  to  func- 

^^  In  point  of  time  the  probation  followed  the  prophecy  and  appoint- 
ment. This  is  showed  plainly  at  a  later  period  by  the  relation  of  the 
congregational  resolution  (the  accompaniment  of  prophecy)  to  the  action 
of  the  bishop  in  conferring  minor  orders.  He  who  is  nominated  to  the 
office  of  lector  or  subdeacon  (appointment  to  the  subdiaconate  was 
doubtless  modelled  after  that  to  the  diaconate)  had  to  pass  through  a 
probation,  —  cf.  Source  A  of  Apost.  Ch.  Order,  c.  4;  and  Cypr.  ep.  39. 
The  resolution,  however,  which  expressed  the  assent  of  the  clergy  and 
congregation  was  required  at  the  time  of  entrance  upon  this  probation. 
The  conclusive  appointment  after  probation  required  merely  the  assent 
of  the  clergy,  not  again  that  of  the  congregation,  —  Cypr.  epp.  29,  38,  39, 
40.  O.  Ritschl,  Cyprian,  pp.  169-172.  The  position  of  the  congrega- 
tional resolution  shows  what  was  originally  the  place  of  the  prophecy 
(with  assent  of  the  people) ;  and  so  the  first  i-esolution  of  the  bishop  and 
clergy  (with  assent  of  the  congregation)  was  the  appointment  proper. 
The  appointment  to  one  of  the  minor  ordei's  was  an  appointment  with 
subsequent  trial  by  probation. 


§  22]  DEACONS  379 

tions  which  are  regarded  at  the  same  time  as  a  prepara- 
iion  for  the  independent  administration  of  the  teaching 
office  —  the  priesthood. 

K.  The  Minor  Orders.  Sohm  gives  his  theory  of  the  ordines 
minores  as  an  "  Anhang "  (pp.  128-137)  to  the  section  on 
Deacons.  This  is  a  subject  which  has  been  discussed  at 
considerable  length  by  Harnack  (Tcxte,  II.  5,  pp.  57-103)  as 
a  supplement  to  his  investigation  of  Die  Quellen  der  sogennaii- 
ten  apostolischen  Kirchenordnuiig.  This  whole  work  has  been 
rendered  into  English  under  the  misleading  title  Sources  of  The 
Ajjostolic  Canons  (London,  1895),  and  with  a  bulky  and  superflu- 
ous Introduction  by  the  translator.  Sohm  agrees  with  many  of 
Harnack's  conclusions.  Like  him,  he  attributes  the  institution 
of  the  minor  orders  to  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
and  refers  it  to  Eome,  which  he  considers  the  center  from 
which  the  whole  Catholic  organization  was  developed.  He  rec- 
ognizes, too,  the  justice  of  Harnack's  contention  that  the  minor 
orders  were  not  all  of  them  a  mere  development  of  the  diacon- 
ate,  as  the  prevalent  view  had  maintained.  For  Harnack  has 
made  it  clear  that  the  offices  of  lector  and  exorcist  were 
early  offices  in  the  Church,  founded  each  upon  a  particular 
and  personal  charisma.  But  they  were  originally  lay  offices, 
and  the  development  of  the  third  century  consisted  merely  in 
ranking  the  lector  and  exorcist,  together  with  the  door-keeper 
{osfiarius),  among  the  clergy. 

Sohm  emphatically  disagrees,  however,  with  Harnack's  view 
of  the  minor  orders  as  an  imitation  of  the  heathen  temple 
and  altar  ministrants,  —  a  view  which  finds  its  chief  support 
in  the  position  of  the  acolytes  and  door-keepers.  He  affirms 
that  the  fundamental  thought  which  determined  the  develop- 
ment of  the  minor  orders  was  entirely  different  from  that 
which  Harnack  assumes.  It  was  not  because  they  ministered 
to  a  sacred  person  (the  priest)  or  about  a  sacred  place  (the 
Church  building)  that  a  sacred  character  was  ascribed  to  them  ; 
but  rather  because,  for  all,  even  the  subordinate  ministrations  at 
the  Eucharist,  only  spiritually  apt  persons  were  chosen,  —  per- 
sons, consequently,  who  might  be  expected  to  rise  to  the  higher 


380  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

orders,  as  the  subordinate  ministrants  of  the  heathen  cults 
never  did.  The  fundamental  idea  which  determined  the  devel- 
opment of  the  minor  orders,  says  Sohm,  was  the  early 
Christian  principle  that  the  "  sacrifice "  of  the  Church,  the 
Eucharist,  must  he  "pure"  {Didache,  xiv.  1,  3).  From  this 
it  was  deduced  that  all  who  take  part  in  the  administration  of 
the  Eucharist  must  be  pure,  "  worthy  of  the  Lord."  The  princi- 
ple was  applied  at  first  only  to  the  bishops,  presbyters  and 
deacons ;  but  it  was  finally  applied,  as  the  importance  of  the 
Eucharist  increased  under  the  influence  of  the  Catholic  idea 
of  sacrifice  (about  the  end  of  the  second  century),  to  all  the 
ministers  that  had  any,  though  a  less  immediate  relation  to  the 
Eucharist  (subdeacons,  acolytes,  exorcists,  lectors,  and  door- 
keepers). The  idea  was  that  all  of  these  functions,  which  were 
more  or  less  closely  related  to  the  Eucharist,  ought  not  to  be 
performed  except  by  persons  that  were  formally  appointed  by 
the  bishop,  after  their  moral  fitness  had  been  passed  upon 
by   the   congregation. 

For  the  origin  and  history  of  the  lectorate  I  may  refer  to  Har- 
nack's  valuable  study.  For  the  development  of  the  minor 
orders  in  general  I  refer  to  Sohm's  work,  giving  here  only 
a  brief  abstract  of  his  theory,  such  as  will  serve  to  show  what 
one  may  expect  to  find  by  turning  to  his  book. 

There  is  general  agreement  as  to  the  fact  that  the  subdiacon- 
ate  was  first  introduced  at  Eome,  for  it  was  there  alone, 
apparently,  that  the  symbolical  limitation  of  the  number  of  dea- 
cons was  regarded  as  a  necessity.  It  seems  that  in  Eome 
the  subdeacons  too  were  limited  to  seven,  merely  because  they 
bore  a  similar  name.  Harnack  himself  (pp.  102,  103)  estab- 
lishes the  grounds  upon  which  Sohm  builds  his  theory.  He 
calls  attention  to  the  notice  in  the  Catalogus  Liherianus :  Hie 
(Fabianus)  divisit  regiones  diaconibus.  That  is,  the  Roman 
bishop  Fabian,  shortly  after  the  year  236,  distributed  among 
the  deacons  the  14  regions  into  which  Augustus  had  divided  the 
city.  Harnack  thinks  it  unlikely  that  Fabian,  in  thus  adapt- 
ing the  ecclesiastical  administration  to  the  civil,  should  assign 
two  regions  to  each  of  the  seven  deacons.  It  is  certainly  plau- 
sible to  suppose  that,  as  the  number  of   deacons  could  not  be 


§  22]  DEACONS  381 

increased,  seven  subdeacons  were  appointed  expressly  to  fill  up 
the  number  fourteen,  so  that  a  single  region  might  be  allotted 
to  each.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  Liber  Pontificalis,  which 
adds  to  the  notice  of  the  Catal.  Liber. :  et  fecit  septem  subdia- 
conos.  A  more  unimpeachable  witness  is  the  letter  of  the  Roman 
bishop  Cornelius,  addressed  in  the  year  250  to  Fabius  of  Anti- 
och  (Euseb.  H.  E.  VI.  43:11),  which  gives  the  number  of 
Roman  deacons  and  subdeacons  respectively  as  seven.  Corne- 
lius also  gives  the  number  of  presbyters  as  44,  the  number 
of  acolytes  as  42,  while  the  exorcists  and  lectors  with  door- 
keepers numbered  52.  In  the  further  notice  that  the  number 
of  widows  with  sick  and  needy  persons  that  were  supported 
by  the  Church  exceeded  1500,  we  have  a  hint  of  the  extent  of 
the  diaconal  labor  of  ministering  to  the  poor.  Harnack  him- 
self remarks  that  the  number  of  acolytes  (42)  is  exactly  divisi- 
ble by  14,  giving  three  for  each  region,  and  he  acknowledges 
that  at  a  later  date  there  were  undoubtedly  acolytes  appropriated 
to  the  several  regions.  But  the  obvious  consequence  of  these 
facts  he  refuses  to  admit,  considering  the  name  itself  a  sufii- 
cient  obstacle  to  the  view  which  regards  the  acolyte  as  merely 
a  subordinate  sort  of  deacon. 

Sohm  on  the  contrary  finds  the  name  anything  but  unfavor- 
able to  this  view.  The  subdiaconate  originated  at  Rome  because 
seven  deacons  were  not  sufficient  for  the  whole  diaconal 
work  of  the  city.  But  the  subdeacons  were  likewise  limited  to 
seven  by  the  same  symbolical  consideration,  and  we  may 
well  imagine  that  14  deacons  and  subdeacons  were  still  insuffi- 
cient. If  other  deaconal  officers  were  needed,  it  is  obvious  why 
they  should  be  given  a  neutral  name  ("  follower  ")  which  would 
not  suggest  any  limitation  of  the  number.  The  subdeacon 
was  received  in  the  East,  but  not  the  acolyte.  The  reason 
is  obvious.  In  the  East  there  was  no  limitation  of  the  num- 
ber of  subdeacons;  the  symbolical  consideration  was  not 
regarded,  and  consequently  these  officers  might  be  increased  as 
convenience  prompted.  The  acolyte  was  essentially  the  same 
as  the  subdeacon,  viz.  a  subordinate  sort  of  deacon.  The  office 
was  established  at  Rome  as  a  way  out  of  the  practical  em- 
barrassment occasioned  by  the  symbolical  limitation  of  the  sub- 


382  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

diaconate :  where  no  such  limitation  existed  the  office  was 
superfluous. 

Sohm  notes  moreover  that  even  in  the  West,  and  in  Rome 
itself,  subdeacon  and  acolyte  were  regarded,  in  the  year  400  and 
later,  as  officers  of  the  same  sort.  Pope  Zosimus  required  that 
he  who  entered  the  ecclesiastical  career  in  mature  years  should 
serve  five  years  as  lector  or  exorcist,  then  four  years  as  acolyte 
or  subdeacon.^"'  The  service  of  acolyte  is  equivalent  to  that  of 
subdeacon.  The  offices  of  acolyte  and  subdeacon  are  distinct, 
but  originally  they  signified  one  and  the  same  grade  in  the 
ministry  of  the  Church,  one  and  the  same  ordo.  This  explains 
why  it  is  that  the  acolyte  comes  immediately  after  the  sub- 
deacon and  before  the  exorcist,  etc. 

Sohm  shows  further,  from  the  texts  which  have  just  been 
cited,  that  at  Rome,  as  late  as  the  fifth  century,  the  offices  of 
exorcist,  lector,  and  door-keeper  constituted  a  single  grade  or 
order.  ^^     Evidently  for  the  reason  that  these  offices,  distinct  as 

^"  Zosimus,  ep.  9  ad  Hesychium,  c.  5  (a.  d.  418)  :  major  jam  et  gran- 
daevus  .  .  .  sive  iuter  lectores  sive  inter  exorcistas  quinquennio  teneatur : 
^  exinde  acoluthus  vel  subdiaconus  quatuor  annis ;  et  sic  ad  beuedictionem 
diaconatus  .  .  .  accedat.  Exinde  .  .  .  presbyterii  sacerdotium  poterit 
promereri.  De  quo  loco  .  .  .  summum  pontificatum  sperare  debebit. 
The  letter  of  Zosimus  is  founded  on  the  decretal  of  Siricius  of  the  year 
385  (cc.  13,  14).  Here  we  read  (c.  13)  that  after  one  has  served  as 
lector  or  exorcist  acoluthus  et  subdiaconus  esse  debebit.  These  words 
too  are  to  be  understood  as  permitting  an  alternative,  as  the  epistle  of 
Zosimus  puts  beyond  a  doubt.  He  shall  be  "  acolyte  and  subdeacon." 
The  one  is  equal  to  the  other.  Hence  too  in  the  decretal  of  Siricius, 
c.  14,  a  single  term  is  prescribed  for  the  service  of  acolyte  and  sub- 
deacon :  per  quinquennium  aliud  acolythus  et  subdiaconus  fiat,  et  sic  ad 
diaconium  .  .  .  pi'ovehatur.  It  suffices  if  for  five  years  he  has  served 
as  acolyte,  he  has  thereby  performed  a  subdiaconal  ministry. 

18  Cf.  the  epistle  of  Cornelius  which  classes  lectors,  exorcists,  and 
door-keepers  together.  More  especially,  Siricius,  ep.  1  ad  Himerium, 
c.  13  (a.  d.  385)  :  Quicumque  itaque  se  ecclesiae  vovit  obsequiis  a  sua 
infantia,  ante  pubertatis  annos  baptizari  et  lectorum  debet  ministerio 
sociari.  Qui  accessu  adolescentiae  usque  ad  tricesinium  aetatis  annum, 
si  probabiliter  vixerit  .  .  .  acolythus  et  subdiaconus  esse  debebit;  post- 
que  ad  diaconii  gradum  .  .  .  accedat.  Unde  si  ultra  quinque  annos 
laudabiliter  ministrarit,  congrue  presbyterium  consequatur.  Exinde  post 
decennium  episcopalem  cathedrara  poterit  adipisci,  c.  14 :  Qui  vero  jam 
aetate  gradaevus  ...  ex  laico  ad  sacram  militiam   pervenire   festinat, 


§  23]  PRESBYTERS  383 

they  were  in  themselves,  were  all  alike  lay  offices,  whereas 
the  offices  of  acolyte  and  subdeacon,  as  an  extension  of  the 
diaconate,  were  essentially  clerical  offices.  The  ecclesiastical 
career  did  not  necessarily,  nor  even  as  a  rule  begin  with  the 
office  of  ostiariiis.  Tliis  grade  was  passed  by  serving  either 
as  lector  or  exorcist,  advancing  thence  to  the  office  of  acolyte 
or  subdeacon. 

Consequently  there  were  not,  as  has  hitherto  been  supposed, 
five  ordines  minores  established  at  Rome  in  the  third  century, 
but  only  two,  —  two  grades,  that  is,  of  subordinate  clergy.  Sub- 
deacons  and  acolytes  composed  the  higher  of  these  two 
orders ;  exorcists,  lectors,  and  door-keepers,  the  lower.  It  is 
commonly  regarded  as  a  point  of  difference  between  the  East- 
ern Church  and  the  Western,  that  the  former  has  ever  had  but 
two  orders  of  minor  clergy,  the  subdiaconate  and  the  lectorate. 
We  see,  however,  from  the  above  that  the  earlier  Roman  arrange- 
ment agreed  substantially  with  that  of  the  Eastern  Church.  In 
Rome,  too,  only  two  lower  grades  of  clerical  service  had  to  be 
passed  to  reach  the  diaconate,  —  beginning  usually  with  the  lec- 
torate, and  serving  then  in  the  capacity  of  subdeacon  (or  acolyte). 
Only,  in  the  East  the  office  of  singer  was  treated  as  equivalent 
to  the  lectorate,  while  the  offices  of  exorcist  and  door-keeper 
were  so  reckoned  in  the  West ;  and,  further,  the  office  of  acolyte, 
as  the  equivalent  of  the  subdiaconate,  was  lacking  in  the  East. 


§  23,  PRESBYTERS  1 

Incidentally  it  has  already  been  necessary  to  con- 
sider, upon  several  occasions,  and  at  considerable 
length,  the  nature  and  position  of  the  elders  in  the 
primitive  Church.  In  §  21,  pp.  346-365,  the  essential 
character  of  this  class  of  elder  disciples  was  discussed, 

.  .  .  eo  quo  baptizatur  tempore  statim  lectorum  aut  exorcistarum  numero 
societur,  .  .  .  expleto  biennio  per  quinquennium  aliud  acolythus  et  sub- 
diaconus  fiat. 

1  This  section  is  in  the  main  an  abbreviation  of  the  corresponding 
sections  of  Sohm's  work,  §§  11  and  12,  pp.  137-156. 


384  THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

together  with  the  informal  functions  of  presidency  and 
instruction  which  they  performed.  The  j»7/«ce  of  the 
elders  in  the  Eucharistic  assembly,  which  gradually 
led  to  their  formal  instalment  as  officers,  has  been 
described  in  §19,  pp.  276,  277,  286,  290-297.  Of 
what  has  already  been  said  the  sum  is  this :  The 
elders  or  presbyters  —  that  is,  the  disciples  of  long 
standing,  ripe  Christian  experience,  and  confirmed 
character  ^ — were  naturally  accorded  a  special  honor 
and  influence  in  the  community,  and  formed  from 
the  beginning  a  vaguely  defined  class,  the  most  osten- 
sible mark  of  which  was  the  fact  that  they  enjoyed 
seats  of  honor  at  the  Eucharistic  table  together  with 
the  president  —  apostle,  prophet,  or  bishop,  as  the  case 
might  be.  The  dignity  of  the  presbyter  was  increased, 
and  his  position  more  formally  defined,  when  the 
number  of  disciples  at  the  principal  assembly  rendered 
it  impossible  for  all  to  sit  at  the  Eucharistic  table. 
While  the  older  custom  was  still  fresh  in  the  memory, 
and  still  practised  in  the  smaller  assemblies,  it  would 
have  been  a  manifest  ineptitude  had  the  president 
(bishop)  sat  at  the  table  alone.  Tlie  bishop  represented 
the  Lord,  who  sat  with  his  disciples  (the  Apostles)  at 
the  table.  Consequently,  with  the  bishop  the  disciples 
must  ever  continue  to  sit  —  not  all  of  them,  for  that 
was  become  impossible,  but  at  least  the  presbyters, 
who  constituted  as  it  were  the  kernel  of  the  congre- 
gation.^    The    only   other   persons   that   had    a   place 

2  Besides  the  passages  from  Ignatius  quoted  above  on  pp.  290,  291, 
294,  295,  we  have  various  indications  of  the  position  of  the  presbyters 
in  the  Eucharistic  assembly.  Rev.  4:4,  —  the  elders  that  appear  in  the 
heavenly  assembly  of  worship  have  seats  that  are  arranged  circularly 
{KVK\66ev)  about  the  throne  of  God.  This  is  evidently  a  transcript  of 
the  arrangement  of  the  earthly  assembly.  The  third  century  source  of 
Aposl.  Const.  11.  c.  26 :  "  Let  the  bishop  have  the  first  seat  among  you  in 


§  23]  PRESBYTERS  385 

in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  altar  were  the  dea- 
cons ;  and  they,  as  accorded  with  the  original  character 
of  their  function,  continued  to  stand. 

From  the  position  and  functions  of  the  bishop, 
presbyters,  and  deacons  at  the  Eucharist  grew  up  the 
notion  of  the  clergy.  Out  of  the  order  of  the  Eucha- 
ristic  assembly  the  whole  order  and  organization  of  the 
Church  was  developed.  In  all  assemblies  of  Christen- 
dom —  e.  g.  at  a  later  time  in  synods  and  councils  — 
the  bishops  and  presbyters  sat  and  the  deacons  stood. 
Bishops  and  deacons  have  been  already  considered : 
it  remains  to  be  shown  that  the  functions  of  the 
presbyters,  too,  were  almost  exclusively  defined  by 
their  position  in  the  Eucharistic  assembly.  Being  by 
nature  the  bishop's  peers,  the  class  from  which  he 
himself  was  chosen,  their  regular  presence  with  the 
bishop  at  the  altar  as  his  assessors,  constituted  them 

God's  place,  and  let  the  deacons  stand  by  him."  1  Clem,  ad  Cor.  40: 
"  For  unto  the  high-priest  his  proper  services  have  been  assigned,  and  to 
the  priests  their  pi'oper  jilace  is  appointed,  and  upon  the  levites  their 
proper  ministrations  are  laid."  The  Eucharistic  celebration  is  here 
treated  as  a  parallel  to  the  Old  Testament  temple-service.  The  'Keirovpyia 
(administration  of  worship)  is  ascribed  to  the  high-priest  (/.  e.  the 
bishop),  the  8iaKovia  (ministry  at  the  Eucharist)  to  the  levites  (deacons), 
and  the  appropriate  place  of  honor  (XSios  6  tottos)  to  the  priests  (presby- 
ters). Hermas  (Vis.  III.  1 : 8,  9)  desires  that  the  presbyters  shall  have 
the  place  of  honor  next  the  "  Ecclesia  " ;  but  he  is  instructed  that  on  the 
right  of  the  Ecclesia  the  martyrs  shall  sit,  and  on  the  left,  Hermas  him- 
self, the  prophet.  It  is  clear  from  this  that  the  rule  which  actually  pre- 
vailed ascribed  to  the  presbyters  the  seats  of  honor  on  the  right  and  left 
of  the  bishop.  Hence  in  Vis.  III.  9 :  7  the  presbyters  are  called  the 
tTpu)TOKa6fbp'irai.  So,  too,  by  Ignatius  they  are  called  TrpoKadripfvot.  (Magn. 
6).  Source  A  of  the  Apost.  Church  Oi-der  distinguishes  expressly  between 
the  presbyters  "  on  the  right  "  and  "  on  the  left "  of  the  bishop  at  the 
altar.  The  seat  on  the  right  is  here,  as  evidently  it  is  for  Hermas,  the 
seat  of  higher  honor.  For  the  distinction  between  the  presbyters  "on 
the  right"  and  "on  the  left,"  see  lib.  I.  §  19,  p.  25  of  Rahmanus'  ed.  of 
Testamentum  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  INIoguntiae,  1899.  Later  refer- 
ences to  the  position  of  the  presbyters  are  exceedingly  numerous. 

25 


386  THE   EUCHARTSTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

his  natural  body  of  adviseus  —  his  council.  As  the 
bishop's  assessors,  they  took  part  with  him  in  receiving 
and  superintending  the  gifts  of  the  people;  and  they 
were  active  with  him  in  maintaining  order  in  the 
assembly,  and  in  disposing  of  the  cases  of  discipline 
which  this  might  involve.  Being  naturally  the  leading 
members  of  the  community,  and  representing  the  whole 
congregation  at  the  altar,  their  decision  or  assent  was 
assumed  to  express  the  decision  or  assent  of  the  con- 
gregation in  respect  to  the  many  matters  which,  when 
the  Church  was  grown  large,  could  not  conveniently 
be  referred  to  the  popular  vote.  In  this  capacity  — 
as  the  representative  kernel  of  the  congregation  — 
they  had  even  power  over  the  bishop :  it  was  they  that 
appointed  him,  and,  having  appointed  him,  not  only 
aided  and  advised  him,  but  responsibly  superintended 
his  acts. 

We  may  note  in  passing  why  it  was,  that,  as  popular 
participation  in  the  government  of  Church  affairs 
lapsed  into  desuetude,  no  system  of  lay  representation, 
such  as  is  so  marked  a  feature  of  our  modern  ecclesi- 
astical governments,  was  developed  to  take  the  place 
of  the  popular  voice,  and  register  the  assent  of  the 
congregation.  The  presbyters  were  the  representatives 
of  the  people,  —  not  by  formal  deputation,  but  by 
the  more  secure  warrant  of  natural  leadership.  They 
were  the  leaders  of  the  community,  whose  judgment 
the  people  might  reasonably  be  expected  to  follow, — 
whose  decision,  therefore,  might  be  assumed  to  be  the 
decision  of  the  people.  They  were  no  less  duly  repre- 
sentative of  the  people  because  they  finally  gained 
a  place  among  the  clergy.  For  the  clergy  were  not 
thought  of  as  a  separate  estate  within  the  Church, 
with  interests  and  aims  dissimilar  or  contrary  to  those 


§  23]  PRESBYTERS  387 

of  the  people;  and  least  of  all  could  the  presbyters 
be  supposed  to  be  alienated  from  the  common  life, 
since  throughout  the  second  century  they  were  still 
generally  dependent  upon  the  ordinary  avocations  of 
the  lay  world  for  their  material  support. 

The  position  of  the  presbyters  became  defined  and 
formalized  by  the  privilege  they  enjoyed  of  occupying 
the  seats  of  honor  at  the  Eucharist.  Their  position 
became  an  office,  and  their  name  an  official  designation 
which  was  henceforth  ordinarily  applied  only  to  those 
that  were  formally  recognized  as  admissible  to  such 
seats.  This  implied  formal  appointment  to  office,  which 
was  effected,  like  appointment  to  the  episcopate  and 
diaconate,  through  election  and  the  laying  on  of  hands. 
Originally  an  appointed  presbyter  was  ipso  facto  a 
bishop.  But  the  development  here  in  question  was 
subsequent  to  the  establishment  of  the  monarchical 
episcopate,  that  is  to  say,  it  occurred  during  the  first 
half  of  the  second  century :  henceforth  there  was  only 
one  bishop  even  in  the  largest  communities,  and  ap- 
pointment to  the  presbyterate  —  i.  e.  to  the  honor 
of  the  chief  seats  beside  the  bishop  —  could  not  be 
confounded  with  appointment  to  the  episcopate. 

But  even  ordination  to  the  presbyterate  did  not 
at  first  confer  upon  the  presbyters  an  inalienable  right 
to  the  seats  of  honor  at  the  Eucharist,  nor  was  ordina- 
tion an  indispensable  condition  of  this  honor.  These 
two  facts  are  very  closely  related.  It  was  not  the  or- 
dained presbyters  alone  that  might  claim  the  chief 
seats  at  the  Eucharist;  the  same  distinction  might  be 
claimed  by  other  honorables  —  especially  the  martyrs 
(or  confessors)  —  whose  leading  position  in  the  com- 
munity was  clearly  enough  defined  without  ordination. 


388  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

The  result  was  that  even  the  ordained  presbyters  had 
in  certain  circumstances  to  give  place  to  other  dis- 
tinguished members  of  the  congregation.  It  was  first 
at  Rome,  as  Sohm  thinks,  that  the  presbyters  were 
clothed  with  legal  privileges,  and  so  acquired  an 
exclusive  right  to  the  seat  of  honor  at  the  Eucharist.  At 
all  events,  it  is  evident  that  the  development  was  a 
gradual  one,  and  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  it  was 
first  accomplished  in  the  greater  centers  of  Church 
life,  where  many  were  ambitious  of  the  chief  seats, 
and  where  the  independent  parochial  functions  of 
the  presbyters  were  first  called  into  exercise. 

L.  I  gather  together  here  the  detailed  proof  of  the  proposi- 
tions briefly  enunciated  in  the  last  two  paragraphs. 

The  earliest  evidence  of  ordination  (appointment)  to  the  pres- 
byterate  we  find  in  Ignatius  and  Hermas.  It  is  enough  for  the 
present  purpose  that  both  authorities  belong  to  the  first  half  of 
the  second  century,  —  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  however,  may 
confidently  be  referred  to  the  years  110-117,  and  the  writings 
of  Hermas  belong  probably  to  the  year  140  circa.  Ignatius, 
Philad.  inscr., "  with  the  bishop  and  the  presbyters  .  .  .  and  the 
deacons,  appointed  according  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ,  whom 
after  his  own  will  he  confirmed  and  established  by  his  Holy 
Spirit."  The  testimony  of  Hermas  is  not  so  direct,  and  it  has 
to  be  gathered  from  scattered  hints,  but  on  the  whole  it  is 
exceedingly  significant  of  the  gradual  development  of  the 
official  notion  of  the  presbytery.  In  Vis.  III.  1  :  8,  9, 
Hermas  has  a  revelation  that  the  prophets  and  martyrs  have 
in  principle  as  good  a  right  to  the  chief  seats  on  either  side  of 
the  bishop  as  have  the  presbyters,  —  this  is  substantially  the 
meaning  of  his  symbolical  vision.  It  is  evident  that  the  pres- 
byters were  already  formally  appointed,  and  legally  —  at  Eome,  it 
may  be,  exclusively  —  in  possession  of  the  chief  seats.  But 
Hermas  seems  to  be  writing  at  a  time  when  the  development 
was  only  just  accomplished.  The  older  order  was  not  yet  for- 
gotten, and  some  (including  the  prophet  Hermas)  were  unwilling 


§  23]  PRESBYTERS  389 

to  acquiesce  in  the  exclusive  rights  of  the  presbyters  to  the 
seats  of  honor  at  the  Eucharist.  Cf.  the  dissension  between 
the  "  leaders  "  (e.  g.  prophets)  and  the  occupants  of  the  chief 
seats  (the  presbyters)  in  Vis.  III.  9:7;  and  the  strife  Trepl 
Trpcoreicov  in  Sim.  VIII.  7  :  4. 

Here  is  a  change  indeed  from  the  early  order !  Originally 
the  prophets  and  teachers  were  the  born  leaders  of  the  Church : 
now  they  aspire  after  no  higher  honor  than  to  sit  among  the 
presbyters  "  on  the  left  hand  "  of  the  bishop,  —  and  even  this 
is  not  conceded  them  except  in  a  vision.  The  right  of  the 
ordained  presbyters  was  by  this  time  unquestioned  in  the  Eoman 
Church,  the  only  question  that  remained  was,  whether  other 
notables  might  sit  with  them.  It  appears  as  though  Hermas 
were  consoling  himself  in  a  vision  for  what  was  practically 
denied  him  in  real  life.  When  told  to  "  sit  down  here,"  he  ob- 
jected that  this  was  rather  the  right  of  the  presbyters.  The 
command  being  repeated,  he  essays  to  sit  upon  the  right  side, 
but  is  admonished  that  the  seats  upon  the  right  are  "  for  those 
who  have  already  proved  pleasing  to  God  and  have  suffered  for 
his  name."  But  even  the  martp-s,  we  may  suppose,  were  by 
this  time  (in  Eome)  hardly  suffered  to  occupy  the  presbyters' 
seats  except  in  a  vision.  The  wisest  part  was  to  reconcile  one- 
self to  the  existing  state  of  affairs.  So,  in  Mcind.  XL  12,  Hermas 
counts  it  a  sign  of  a  false  prophet  to  desire  an  eminent  seat. 
The  true  prophet  (Maud.  XI.  8) "  is  meek  and  peaceable  and 
lowly  in  mind,  and  separate  from  all  evil  and  lust  of  this  vain 
world,  and  makes  himself  more  lowly  than  all  men."  The 
same  honor  which  Hermas  desired  for  the  martyrs  and  prophets 
was  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  QStrom.  VI.  13 :  106)  desired  — 
and  as  certainly  not  obtained  —  for  the  "  gnostic  "  :  the  gnostic 
is  the  true  presbyter  and  deacon  of  the  Church,  "  not  ordained 
by  men,"  but  meriting  none  the  less  a  seat  of  eminence.  Clement 
here  assumes  the  ordination  of  the  presbyters,  and  implies  that 
ordination  was  actually  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  chief  seats  "  on  earth."  Ordination  to  the  presby- 
terate  is  assumed  likewise  by  Tertullian  (^circa  200),  in  a  passage 
which  will  be  considered  below.  And  about  the  same  time  by 
Hippolytus  (^Philosoph.  IX.  12),  whose  witness  applies  especially 


390  THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

to  Eome  :  "  with  Callistus  they  began  to  wppoint  to  the  clerical 
order  {KaOiaraadai,  ek  KX^povi)  bishops  and  presbyters  and 
deacons  who  were  twice  and  thrice  married."  In  the  middle  of 
the  third  century  we  have  the  same  testimony  in  the  letter  of 
Cornelius  (Euseb.  H.  E.  VI.  43)  :  "  through  the  favor  of  the 
bishop  who  ordained  him  (laid  hands  upon  him)  to  the  order  of 
the  presbyterate." 

But  the  rights  of  the  presbyters  were  not  every  where  inter- 
preted so  exclusively  as  they  were  at  Eome  before  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  (according  to  Hermas),  or  at  Alexandria 
about  the  end  of  that  century  (according  to  Clement).  During 
the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century  the  martyrs  of  Lyons  called 
the  presbyter  Irenaeus  their  "  brother  and  partner  "  (kolvcdvov 
Euseb.  H.  KY.4:),  —  a  phrase  which  it  is  not  easy  to  understand, 
unless  the  martyrs  in  Gaul  shared  the  chief  seats  with  the  pres- 
byters. The  Canons  of  Hippolytus  {circa  200)  actually  pre- 
scribe it  as  a  rule,  that  a  martyr  (one  who  has  testified  to  his 
faith  before  a  tribunal,  and  suffered  punishment)  merits  the 
presbyterial  rank  without  ordination,  vi.  §  43 :  Quando  quis 
dignus  est,  qui  stet  coram  tribunali  propter  fidem  et  afiiciatur 
poena  propter  Christum,  postea  autem  indulgentia  liber  dimittitur, 
talis  postea  meretur  gradum  preshytericdein  coram  deo,  non 
secimdum  ordinationem  quae  fit  ab  episcopo  (God  gives  him  his 
position,  he  needs  not  the  bishop's  ordination),  immo  confessio 
est  ordinatio  ejus.  Quod  si  vero  episcopus  fit,  ordinetur.  He 
needs  ordination  if  he  would  be  a  bishop :  the  rank  of  presbyter 
ought  to  be  conceded  him  without  ordination.  The  "  rank  of 
presbyter  "  can  only  mean  the  presbyter's  seat  of  honor  at  the 
Eucharist,  for  the  martyr  as  such  has,  of  course,  no  ofiice.  The 
same  rule  is  repeated  in  the  Egyptian  Church  Order.,  c.  34  (see 
Achelis,  pp.  67,  68,  in  Tcxtc  u.  Untersuch.  VI.  4).  Both  these 
"  orders  "  add  that  a  confessor  who  has  suffered  no  pains  "  is 
worthy  of  the  presbyterate,  but  he  is  to  be  ordained  by  the 
bishop."  Evidently,  at  the  time  of  the  redaction  of  the  Can. 
Hipp,  in  the  East  there  was  a  tendency  to  greater  circumspec- 
tion in  admitting  to  the  honor  of  the  presbyterate  without  ordi- 
nation. According  to  the  parallel  in  the  Apost.  Const.  VIII.  c. 
23,  the  confessor  is  indeed  "  worthy  of  gi'eat  honor,"  "  but  if  he  is 


§  23]  PRESBYTERS  391 

needed  in  the  episcopate  or  the  presbyterate  or  the  diaconate 
he  is  to  be  ordained."  If  a  confessor  takes  this  honor  with- 
out ordination,  he  is  to  be  thrust  out,  as  one  who  has  denied 
Christ. 

TertuUian,  de  praescr.  haeret.  c.  41  {circa  203) :  Ordinationes 
eorum  (the  heretics)  temeriae,  leves,  inconstantes  .  .  .  hodie 
presbyter  qui  eras  laicus,  nam  et  laicis  sacerdotalia  munera 
injungunt.  This  important  passage  throws  light  upon  several 
points  which  are  here  of  interest.  (1)  It  proves  that  in 
Africa  (and  Kome)  about  the  year  200,  not  only  were  the 
presbyters  ordained,  but  their  ordination  was  recognized  by 
the  Catholics  as  conferring  a  permanent  right  to  their  office,  — 
we  may  add,  when  we  consider  the  implications  of  the 
passage,  that  it  conferred  an  exclusive  right  to  the  seats  of 
honor  at  the  Eucharist.  (2)  It  proves  that  the  heretics  like- 
wise ordained  their  presbyters,  and  therefore  the  custom 
of  ordaining  to  the  presbyterate  must  have  been  commonly 
adopted  before  the  greater  Gnostic  organizations  separated 
from  the  Church.  (3)  But  the  heretics  still  adhered  to  the 
earlier  customs :  ordination  gave  the  presbyter  no  right  to  his 
seat  of  honor.  "He  who  to-day  is  presbyter,  to-morrow  is 
a  layman."  If  to-day  he  sits  at  the  altar,  to-morrow  he 
may  find  himself  obliged  to  sit  with  the  people.  Here  it  is 
clear  that  to  appear  in  the  role  of  a  presbyter  is  equivalent  to 
occupying  the  seat  of  honor  in  the  assembly  —  only  thus  is 
it  possible  to  conceive  of  an  ordained  presbyter  in  the  Church 
being  now  "  presbyter "  and  now  "  layman,"  The  passage 
adds :  "  for  upon  the  laity  too  they  impose  priestly  functions." 
Here  we  have  the  reason  for  the  foregoing.  Even  a  layman 
{i.  e.  one  who  is  not  ordained)  whom  the  congregation  wishes 
to  honor  —  a  martyr,  a  prophet,  or  the  like  —  may  sit  with 
the  bishop  at  the  Eucharistic  table,  and  for  him  a  presbyter 
may  have  to  yield  his  place. 

Originally  the  presbyterate  did  not  denote  an  office 
in  any  proper  sense,  but  only  a  position  of  honor  in  the 
assembly.  The  bishop  had  a  Xeirovpyia,  the  conduct 
of  the  Eucharist ;  the  deacon  a  hiaKovia  in  the  technical 


392  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

sense,  the  function  of  service  at  the  Eucharist ;  the  pres- 
byter merely  a  totto^;,  a  place  of  honor,  as  assessor  with 
the  bishop  at  the  Eucharist.^  The  individual  presbyter 
had  no  definite  functions,  he  appears  simply  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  presbytery.'*  It  must  be  supposed  that  the 
development  of  the  monarchical  episcopate  devolved 
upon  the  presbyters  of  the  great  cities  many  of  the 
original  functions  of  the  bishop.  Only  thus  can  we 
conceive  of  the  regular  maintenance  of  several  as- 
semblies within  the  one  local  Church  (episcopal  see). 
But  it  appears  clearly  that  in  many  places,  perhaps 
throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  Church,  even  the 
ordained  presbyters,  as  late  as  the  third  century,  were 
not  yet  regarded  as  Church  officers  in  the  proper  sense, 
and  exercised  no  distinctive  ministry.^     Only  so  is  it 

3  Cf.  above,  note  2. 

*  Hence  in  Ignatius  we  have  no  mention  of  individual  presbyters,  but 
only  of  the  presbytery,  —  Ephes.  2:2;  4:1;  20  :  2 ;  iMagn.  13  :  1 ;  Trail. 
2:2;  7:2;  13:2;  Philad.  4;  7:1;  Smyrn.  8:1;  12:2. 

5  Source  B  of  the  Apost.  Church  Order  (latter  half  of  the  second 
century)  recognizes,  like  Ignatius,  only  two  sorts  of  officers  in  the 
Church,  bishops  and  deacons ;  and  it  proposes  to  the  faithful  deacon  the 
prospect  of  becoming  —  not  presbyter,  but  —  bishop  (§  G):  "for  they 
that  have  well  performed  the  diaconal  ministry  may  gain  for  themselves 
the  pastoral  place,"  Harnack,  Texte,  11.  5,  p.  26.  The  same  relation  ap- 
pears even  more  clearly,  if  possible,  in  the  Syrian  Didaskalia  (the  third 
century  source  of  Apost.  Const.  II.).  Here  again  we  have  but  two 
offices,  the  episcopate  and  the  diaconate.  The  bishop  administers  Church 
affairs  with  the  aid  of  the  deacons :  cf.  Source  of  Apost.  Const.  II.  10, 
"  the  bishop  and  the  deacons  .  .  .  and  the  flock  " ;  c.  17,  discipline  is 
administered  by  "  the  bishop  with  his  deacons "  ;  "  being  of  one  mind 
among  yourselves,  O  bishops  and  deacons,  watchfully  shepherd  the 
people  in  harmony";  —  for  other  citations  see  Sohm,  p.  143,  note  14. 
While  in  this  source  the  bishops  and  deacons  are  mentioned  with  very 
great  frequency,  the  presbyters  are  rarely  referred  to.  They  are  the 
council  of  the  bishop  and  the  crown  of  the  Church,  they  can  administer 
baptism  in  the  bishop's  place  (Didaskalia,  III.  16),  but  they  have  no 
definite  ministry.  Hence  the  decisive  fact  that  according  to  this  source 
the  presbyters  were  not  ordinarily  entitled  to  a  share  of  the  Church  offer- 
ings :  Didaskalia,  II.  28,  the  widow  receives  a  single,  the  (bishop  and) 


§  23]  PRESBYTERS  393 

possible  to  understand  how,  until  the  third  century, 
the  martyrs  were  ranked  as  presbyters.  The  martyr 
as  such  had  of  course  no  office. 

But  the  very  fact  that  the  presbyters,  and  they 
alone,  sat  with  the  bishop  at  the  altar,  must  soon, 
and  perhaps  from  the  beginning,  have  put  them  in 
the  way  of  performing  certain  practical  functions. 

The  most  illuminating  evidence  we  have  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  presbyter's  functions  is  a  document  of 
the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  which  Harnack 
calls  Source  A  of  the  Apostolic  Church  Order,  discrim- 
inating it  from  the  later  constituents  of  this  third  cen- 
tury work.^     The   section   relative   to   the    presbyters 

deacon  a  double  portion,  "  but  if  any  one  wish  to  honor  the  presbyters 
also,  let  him  give  to  them  a  double  portion  as  to  the  deacons."  The 
presbyters  thus  received  a  share  of  the  gifts  only  at  the  express  desire  of 
the  giver.  The  rule  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  (cf.  above,  p.  354,  note  19), 
that  "the  well-presiding  elders"  should  have  a  double  share  of  the  offer- 
ings, had  not  every  where  become  operative  even  by  the  middle  of  the 
third  century.  Why?  Because  the  elders  as  such  performed  no  official 
ministry  in  the  Ecclesia.  —  The  testimony  that  has  been  here  cited  proves 
the  more  instructive  when  one  compares  with  it  the  alterations  of 
the  earlier  source  made  by  the  interpolator  of  the  Apost.  Const,  about  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century.  According  to  Apost.  Cotist.  II.  c.  28,  the 
presbyters  have  now,  like  the  deacons,  an  assured  share  of  the  gifts,  as 
something  "  they  earn  by  the  word  of  teaching."  Their  offiicial  functions 
are  enumerated:  HI.  c.  20,  "to  teach,  to  offer,  to  baptize,  to  bless  the 
people"  (cf.  VIII.  cc.  28,  46).  Over  and  over  again  the  presbyters  are 
introduced  into  the  text,  being  enumerated  in  what  was  then  the  custom- 
ary order,  between  bishops  and  deacons  (e.  g.  III.  cc.  7,  20).  This  is  one 
of  the  characteristic  alterations  made  by  the  same  interpolator  (Harnack, 
Proleg.  to  Didache,  pp.  244  sqq.)  in  the  Ignatian  epistles  and  in  Book  VII. 
of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions, — e.g.  Apost.  Const.  VII.  cc.  22,  26,  29, 
31 ;  Pseudoignatius  ad  Tars.  8,  Philad.  4,  Smyrn.  9,  Her.  3.  —  At  Rome, 
by  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  the  presbyters  already  enjoyed  a  well 
established  right  to  a  share  of  the  offerings,  and  occupied  a  definite  place 
in  the  official  hierarchy  (Euseb.  H.  E.  VI.  43:  11),  cf.  Cyprian,  e/j.  39 :  5j 
ut  et  sportulis  idem  (two  confessors  that  had  been  made  lectors)  cum 
presbyteris  honoretur  et  divisiones  mensurnas  aequatis  quantatibus 
partiantur. 

*  Texte  u.  Untersuch.  II.  5,  pp.  10  sqq. 


394  THE   EUCHARISTIC    ASSEMBLY  [IV 

begins  with  a  fanciful  comparison  between  them  and 
the  four  and  twenty  elders  in  the  Apocalyptic  vision, 
ascribing  to  the  heavenly  service  certain  traits  which 
are  evidently  a  reflection  of  the  earthly  assembly. 
§  2.  "  (There  shall  be  two ) '  presbyters  ;  for  four  and 
twenty  presbyters  there  are,  twelve  on  the  right  and 
twelve  on  the  left ;  for  they  on  the  right  receive  the 
bowls  from  the  archangels  and  offer  them  to  the  Lord, 
but  they  on  the  left  keep  watch  ^  over  the  multitude  of 
the  angels.  The  presbyters  must  therefore  be  well  ad- 
vanced in  years  (in  the  world), ^  refraining  in  a  seemly 
measure  from  intercourse  with  women,  readily  sharing 
with  the  brotherhood,  not  respecting  the  persons  of 
men,  fellow  initiates  ^°  of  the  bishop  and  fellow  com- 
batants, assisting  him  in  assembling  the  congregation, 
having  a  willing  mind  towards  the  pastor.  The  pres- 
byters on  the  right  shall  take  care  for  the  bishops  at 
the  altar,  in  order  that  they  (the  bishops)  may  honor 
and  be  honored  "  so  much  as  may  be  due  ;  the  presby- 
ters on  the  left  shall  take  care  for  the  congregation, 
that  it  may  be  orderly  and  without  disturbance,  after  it 
has  first  been  instructed  in  all  subjection.  If  any  one, 
having  been  warned,  answers  presumptuously,  those  at 
the  altar  ^^  shall  unite  and  by  common  counsel  adjudge 

"^  Very  small  communities  (probably  in  Egypt)  are  contemplated,  in 
some  of  which  there  are  not  found  twelve  men  to  elect  a  bishop,  §  1.  It 
appears  to  be  intended  that  there  shall  be  two  presbyters  at  least,  and  that 
in  any  case  there  shall  be  an  even  number,  so  that  they  may  be  equally 
distributed  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left. 

8  enexovcri,  "  they  keep  watch,"  —  with  Bickell  contra  Harnack. 

®  The  phrase  is  redundant. 

^°  (ninnicrTas,  a  term  which  refers  to  the  rites  of  the  pagan  mysteries. 
It  here  signifies  the  presbyters'  close  relation  to  the  cultus,  particularly 
to  the  Eucharist.     The  following  phrases  indicate  their  part  in  discipline. 

1^  Cf.  above,  note  I,  pp.  328  sq. 

12  The  bishop  and  deacons  together  with  all  the  presbyters,  —  as  a  court 
of  appeal  which  cannot  be  accused  of  partiality,  "respect  of  persons." 


§23]  PRESBYTERS  395 

to  such  an  one  the  meet  penalty,  in  order  that  the  others 
also  may  fear,  lest  they  should  accept  any  man's  person, 
and  it  spread  like  a  cancer  and  all  be  seized  by  it." 

Though  this  source  describes  the  functions  of  the 
presbyters  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  it 
evidently  contemplates  small  primitive  communities 
which  have  not  outgrown  the  single  episcopal  assem- 
bly and  the  simple  institutions  which  centered  in  it,  and 
there  is  nothing  here  which  does  not  perfectly  comport 
with  the  earliest  forms  of  Church  government.  We 
have  seen  that  the  single  president  of  the  Eucharist 
(whether  apostle  or  bishop)  was  a  primitive  institution  ; 
and  what  functions  the  primitive  elders  performed  with 
reference  to  the  president  we  are  at  a  loss  to  imagine, 
unless  they  were  such  as  are  described  here.^^  But  on 
the  other  hand,  while  we  can  readily  believe  that  such 
institutions  were  maintained  in  the  small  and  primitive 
communities  of  Egypt,  and  perhaps  in  all  Churches  that 
had  not  outgrown  the  single  assembly,  it  is  impossible 
to  believe  that  this  description  reflects  the  contempo- 
rary practice  in  Rome,  for  example,  or  in  many  of  the 
other  great  cities  where  a  single  assembly  had  long  been 
out  of  the  question.  Alexandria,  it  appears,  had  tena- 
ciously adhered  to  the  traditional  custom,  maintaining 
one  principal  assembly  which  counted  as  an  assembly 

^3  This  document  explains  why  Hermas  regarded  the  seats  at  the 
right  the  place  of  highest  honor  (of.  p.  388)  :  the  administration  of  God's 
property  is  (next  to  the  administration  of  the  Eucharist)  the  highest 
honor  in  the  Church.  There  must  consequently  have  been  a  similar  dis- 
tinction between  the  presbyters  on  the  right  and  on  the  left  in  the  Roman 
Church  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century.  In  1  Clem.  40  :  5  (note 
2,  above)  the  comparison  which  is  instituted  between  the  "  priests  "  and 
the  presbyters  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  latter  had  a  part  in  the 
administration  of  the  offerings.  This  apparently  explains  what  we  read 
in  Acts  11:30,  that  the  offerings  were  sent  "to  the  presbyters"  at 
Jerusalem. 


396  THE   EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

of  the  whole  local  Church,  with  one  bishop,  of  course, 
as  its  president,  and  a  presbytery  which  was  rigidly 
limited  to  twelve  (six  on  each  side  of  the  bishop)  after 
the  number  of  the  Apostles.^*  But  other  great  Churches, 
notably  the  Church  at  Rome,  did  not  suffer  their  devel- 
opment to  be  hampered  by  this  symbolical  limitation  of 
the  presbyterate.  They  probably  had  more  presbyters 
than  were  needed,  or  could  conveniently  be  seated,  at 
the  bishop's  Eucharist ;  and  the  individual  presbyters 
consequently  acquired  more  or  less  independent  func- 
tions as  parochial  pastors,  though  collectively,  as  a 
presbytery,  they  still  had  the  same  relation  to  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  whole  Church,  and  the  same  oversight  of 
the  bishop's  administration,  that  we  find  traced  to  their 
origin  by  the  Source  we  are  here  studying. 

According  to  Source  A,  the  functions  of  the  presby- 
ters are  as  plainly  referable  to  the  character  of  the 
Eucharistic  celebration  as  are  the  functions  of  the  bishop 
and  deacons.  The  elders  were  originally  an  informally 
defined  class  in  the  community,  who  exercised  such  in- 
dependent functions  of  instruction  and  leadership  as 
their  personal  character  and  capacity  warranted.  These 
functions  they  did  not  lose  even  after  the  Catholic  de- 
velopment, and  what  has  been  said  on  pp.  346-365  of 
the  primitive  elders,  may  serve  to  indicate  the  great 
variety  of  informal  services  which  the  appointed  elders 
of  the  second  century  were  expected  to  exercise  in  the 
Church  outside  of  the  assembly.  But  it  was  the  place 
of  honor  which  the  elders  occupied  in  the  Eucharistic 
assembly  which  ultimately  gave  them  an  official  rank 
and  from  first  to  last  defined  the  character  of  their 
official  functions.  In  Source  A  we  find  the  presby- 
ters   at  the   Eucharist   performing    two    several    func- 

"  Cf.  note  B,  p.  23. 


§23]  PRESBYTERS  397 

tions,  which  are  evidently  the  root  and  explanation  of 
the  whole  subsequent  development  of  the  presbyterate. 
The  presbyters  on  the  right  have  the  oversight  of  the 
bishop  and  of  the  episcopal  administration  of  the  gifts, 
seeing  to  it  that  he  himself  is  duly  "  honored "  by  a 
share  of  the  Church  property,  and  that  fair  distribution 
is  made  to  the  other  recipients  of  the  Church's  bounty. 
The  presbyters  on  the  left  have  the  oversight  of  the 
congregation,  and  share  with  the  bishop  and  the  whole 
presbytery  the  decision  of  questions  of  discipline.  We 
must  suppose,  as  an  addition  to  our  text,  that  all  such 
disciplinary  decisions  required  the  ratification  of  the 
consrreo-ation.     This  was  at  all  events  the  rule  even  at 

O  C5 

a  much  later  period  in  case  the  discipline  proceeded 
to  the  length  of  excommunication. 

The  features  which  are  interpolated  in  the  Apoca- 
lyptic picture  of  the  heavenly  assembly  can  be  drawn 
from  no  other  source  than  the  current  ecclesiastical 
practice  in  the  earthly  assemblies.  The  parallel  which 
is  instituted  between  the  four  and  twenty  elders  in 
heaven  and  the  earthly  elders  obliges  us  to  assume 
that  the  functions  attributed  to  the  former  were  act- 
ually performed  by  the  latter,  even  where  the  parallel 
is  not  expressly  drawn  in  the  text.  Hence  we  must 
understand  that  "  those  on  the  right "  received  the 
"  bowls "  (the  various  offerings  of  the  people)  "  from 
the  archangels  "  (the  deacons  ?)  and  presented  them  to 
God  (the  bishop  who  occupied  God's  place).  What  is 
expressly  said  is,  that  "  the  presbyters  on  the  right " 
take  care  for  the  bishop  ^^  (especially  in  the  matter  of  the 

^^  The  bishops  are  mentioned  in  the  plural  because  these  ordinances 
have  in  view  a  number  of  congregations.  It  is  clear  from  other  passages 
that  this  Source  contemplates  only  a  single  bishop  in  each  congregation, 
cf.  Harnack,  p.  13,  note  21. 


398  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

gifts),  that  he  may  receive  due  "honor"  and  give  it. 
The  function  here  ascribed  to  the  presbyters  is  a  double 
one.  As  the  bishop's  inferiors  in  place  they  are  solici- 
tous for  his  dignity  and  careful  to  see  that  he  receives 
a  due  share  of  the  Church's  offerings.  But  they  are  at 
the  same  time  the  honorables  of  the  community,  they 
occupy  their  place  at  the  Eucharistic  table  as  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  whole  congregation,  and  as  such  they 
exercise  a  superintendence  over  the  bishop's  administra- 
tion, checking  any  tendency  to  partiality  or  autocracy, 
especially  in  regard  to  the  distribution  of  the  Church 
property,  the  most  delicate  office  which  the  bishop  has 
to  discharge  as  God's  steward.  The  presbyters  here 
appear  as  the  council  of  the  bishop  occupying  a  highly 
honorable  position,  but  one  which  involves  no  inde- 
pendent executive  powers. 

"  The  presbyters  on  the  left "  have  oversight  over  the 
congregation,  but  cases  of  discipline  which  originate 
with  them  are  referred  to  all  those  who  have  places  of 
honor  at  the  altar  —  the  whole  presbytery  with  the 
bishop  and  deacons. 

The  bishop's  presidency  at  the  Eucharist  implies  the 
presidency  in  every  assembly  of  the  Church,  therefore 
in  particular  in  this  assembly  at  the  altar  for  the  pur- 
pose of  adjudging  discipline.  The  deacons  too  are 
included  in  this  council,  according  to  the  literal  reading 
of  the  text,  for  they  were  certainly  amongst "  those  at 
the  altar,"  though  their  position  there  was  formally  one 
of  service.  This  is  put  beyond  a  doubt  by  §  4  of  this 
Source,  where  it  is  prescribed  that  "  three  deacons  shall 
be  appointed,  for  it  is  written.  Upon  three  shall  every 
word  be  established,"  —  i.  e.  the  deacons  are  to  serve  as 
witnesses  in  cases  of  spiritual  discipline.  The  deacons, 
however,  are  the  ministers  of  the  bishop,  not  of  the 


§  23]  PRESBYTERS  399 

presbyters,  and  it  is  to  him  they  tender  their  witness. 
This  circumstance  unites  with  the  above  to  prove  the 
bishop's  presidency  in  courts  of  discipline  :  at  this  time, 
just  as  a  century  later  according  to  the  Syrian  Didas- 
kalia,  II.  c.  47,  the  deacons  served  the  bishop  (with  their 
witness),  and  the  presbyters  counselled  him. 

The  bishop  performs  the  service  of  the  prophets  and 
teachers  in  the  matter  of  admonition  and  discipline. 
But  the  bishop  is  no  prophet,  and  cannot  speak  with 
the  prophet's  authority.  Hence,  not  only  does  his  judg- 
ment need  the  ultimate  assent  of  the  people,  but  even 
before  it  is  pronounced  it  is  well  for  him  to  take  coun- 
sel with  the  presbytery,  so  that  acting  upon  common 
counsel  there  may  be  no  ground  for  the  charge  of 
partiality  or  respect  of  persons,  and  all  may  enter- 
tain a  wholesome  dread  of  the  bishop's  judgments 
when  they  see  the  leading  men  of  the  congregation 
united  with  him,  —  lest  upon  any  sign  of  weakness 
or  dissension  in  the  leaders,  or  upon  the  mere  sus- 
picion of  unfairness,  the  nascent  spirit  of  rebellion 
spread  like  a  cancer  and  all  be  contaminated. 

Again  we  find  the  presbytery  acting  as  the  council  of 
the  bishop,  —  not  performing  any  independent  functions 
of  judgment,  yet  exercising  as  his  assessors  a  substantial 
control  over  the  bishop's  administration  of  discipline. 
The  government  and  discipline  of  the  Church  is  strong 
so  long  as  the  presbyters  are  "  in  tune  with  the  bishop 
like  the  strings  with  the  lyre." 

Thus  we  see  that  in  all  points  the  order  of  the  Eucha- 
ristic  assembly  defined  the  organization  of  the  Church. 
The  order  of  the  primitive  Eucharistic  assembly  was  the 
matrix  of  the  Catholic  organization.  The  bishop  at  the 
head  conducts  the  Eucharistic  celebration,  the  presby- 


400  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

ters  at  his  side  represent  the  congregation,  the  deacons 
serve  as  his  helpers.  The  picture  we  must  form  of  the 
Eucharistic  assembly  in  the  latter  half  of  the  first 
century  —  from  the  first  establishment  of  the  episcopal 
office  —  is  precisely  the  same  that  we  find  three  centu- 
ries or  so  later.  The  many  attempts  to  discover  the 
origin  of  the  Catholic  form  of  organization  (particu- 
larly the  single  episcopate)  in  the  early  part  of  the 
second  century,  have  proved  futile  because  the  form  was 
already  furnished  by  the  primitive  Eucharistic  assembly. 
The  primitive  order  at  the  Eucharist  explains  the  CathoiiO 
organization,  —  nay,  more,  it  proves  that  between  the 
primitive  and  the  Catholic  organization  there  does  not 
exist  the  difference  which  is  universally  assumed.  In 
outward  form  nothing  was  altered.  And  yet  how  great 
was  the  difference !  The  Eucharistic  assembly  of  the 
following  centuries  rests  upon  a  legal  constitution,  and 
is  consequently  informed  by  the  spirit  of  Catholicism  ; 
while  the  primitive  assembly  recognized  no  legal  ordi- 
nances, and  knew  only  the  spirit  of  love  as  the  bond  of 
peace.  The  bishop  was  appointed  from  the  body  of  the-, 
elders  and  with  their  assent.  Upon  their  continued  as- 
sent depended  his  continuance  in  office.  The  occupancy 
of  the  seats  of  honor  of  the  elders  was  as  yet  determined 
by  no  outward  criterion,  and  consequently  no  one  had  a 
formal  right  to  these  seats.  The  occupancy  varied  as 
elders,  confessors,  prophets,  or  teachers  chanced  in  vary- 
ing numbers  to  be  present  in  the  assembly,  and  as  one 
or  another  was  accounted  most  worthy  of  this  honor. 
Above  all,  as  there  was  no  close  corporation  of  elders, 
so  there  was  no  definite  congregation  constituting  the  as- 
sembly which  met  under  the  presidency  of  a  particular 
bishop.  Even  the  principal  assembly,  which  was  the 
basis  of  the  subsequent  development,  had  only  a  matter 


§  23]  PRESBYTERS  401 

of  fact  existence.  Beside  it  were  other  assemblies.  The 
principal  assembly  itself  varied  in  the  number  of  its  ad- 
herents. The  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  was  possible, 
not  merely  in  one  assembly  and  under  a  particular 
bishop,  but  in  every  assembly  of  disciples.  'The  notion 
of  the  Ecclesia  was  not  yet  formalized.  The  maxim 
still  held  good :  where  two  or  three  are  assembled  in 
Christ's  name,  there  is  Christendom,  the  Ecclesia. 
Hence  the  lack  of  corporate  legal  form,  hence  the  fact 
that  there  were  no  official  rights,  and  that  there  was 
no  congregation  in  the  legal  sense. 

The  only  point  where  we  find  the  conditions  for  a 
permanent  official  order  is  the  principal  assembly,  and 
in  that  assembly  the  prime  fact  was  the  leading  role  of 
the  elders.  Upon  the  high  character  and  importance  of 
the  elders  rests  the  episcopal  order  in  the  Eucharistic 
celebration  :  the  elders  concede  to  the  bishop  his  place, 
and  their  assent  is  the  warrant  which  gives  practical  force 
to  his  official  acts.  But  what  if  the  role  of  leadership 
e  denied  the  elders  ?  What  if  the  ^'  younger  "  revolt 
against  the  "  elder  "  ?  This  was  the  situation  at  Corinth 
which  occasioned  St.  Clement's  epistle,  and  the  case 
was  certainly  not  a  solitary  one.  The  authority  which 
the  elders  exercised  over  the  episcopate  presupposes 
the  absence  of  a  legal  constitution,  the  absence  of  legal 
rights  inherent  in  this  office.  But  the  same  lack  of 
a  legal  constitution  imperilled  also  the  position  of  the 
elders  themselves.  There  existed  no  rights  of  a  corporate 
college  of  elders  as  over  against  the  younger.  All  the 
authority  which  the  elders  exercised  belonged  to  them 
only  as  leaders  and  representatives  of  the  assembly. 
What  then  if  the  assembly  refuse  obedience  to  the  coun- 
sels and  directions  of  the  elders  ? 

26 


402  THE  EUCHARISTIC   ASSEMBLY  [IV 

This  moment  was  bound  to  come ;  —  and  when  it  came 
the  introduction  of  a  legal  order,  the  definition  of  officii 
rights,  may  well  have  appeared  an  inevitable  necessity. 
But   with   the  introduction   of  ecclesiastical   law  primitive 
Christianity  was  transformed  into  Catholicism. 


^ 


I 

I 


DATE  DUE 


